Pentecost—The New Church: Athens: The Challenge of the Gospel. Acts 17:23-34-- August 10, 2025
Transcript Search
Pentecost-The New Church • Sermon • Submitted • Presented • 2:02:57
0 ratings
· 21 viewsWe reviewed the Chain of God view of the pagans, which leads to Pantheistic Monism and Monism as a philosophy, including the false view that man's beingness allows him to accumulate righteousness, as the Catholics teach. We continued into Acts 18 as Paul heads into Corinth.
Files
Notes
Transcript
Sunday, March 23, 2025
Sunday, March 23, 2025
REVIEW
REVIEW
Acts 13 is the beginning of the first missionary journey.
Let’s begin with our passage in Acts 13, and read what we have already covered.
Acts 13:2-4
Acts 13:2-4
2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Here is a map of where this is located. We can see Jeruslame, Antioch, Seleucia on the coast and the Island of Cyrus and then Salamis on the East Coast of Cyrus.
Here we are swept out a bit so that you can see where we are in relation to Italy and Rome, to give you some perspective
Here is the world view, swept way back
Acts 13:5
Acts 13:5
5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as their assistant.
Contextually what was going on here is that they were announcing the gospel: who Jesus of Nazareth is as the Messiah.
We see that spelled out in Paul’s message when he goes to the other Antioch in Pisidia. After they leave Salamis, taking along John Mark,
We see the next step of their journey
Acts 13:6
Acts 13:6
6 Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus,
They find good and bad guys when they get to Paphos. The good guy is going to be the proconsul; the bad guy is this sorcerer, the person who is influenced by demonism, a Jewish false prophet whose name is Bar-Jesus. The Aramaic name “Jesus” [Joshua] was a very popular and common name during the first century. The “bar” at the beginning is Aramaic for “son of.” He is a false prophet clearly involved in demonism and is close to a position of power and influence with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus (That he is called a proconsul indicates that this is a province directly under the authority of the Roman senate). So, the proconsul was in a position of tremendous influence and authority because he represented the senate of Rome.
Luke tells us that Sergius Paulus was an intelligent man. He wants to sit down and understand what it is that they are proclaiming and why.
Acts 13:7
Acts 13:7
7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
——-
But there is a spiritual battle taking place because
Acts 13:8
Acts 13:8
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.
There are a lot of similarities here between this confrontation and the confrontation between Peter earlier in Acts with some of those who opposed him.
Acts 13:9
Acts 13:9
9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him
This is not the filling of the Holy Spirit that we discuss in terms of the command that we have in Ephesians 5:18, to be filled by means of the Spirit. It is a different verb, and it is not a “filled by means of the Spirit,” it does not use the preposition ἐν [EN] plus a dative; it uses a genitive construction, and it indicates someone who is spiritual and directly guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not a sanctification methodology indicated here. Every time we find this phrase, it is followed by speaking or saying something or, in a couple of instances, engaging in some action resulting from this revelatory ministry of God the Holy Spirit. So, this is not a term related to spiritual growth and Ephesians 5:18. The apostle Paul is now being overshadowed by God the Holy Spirit just as he would be later on when he wrote Scripture, guided and directed in a special way.
Acts 13:10
Acts 13:10
10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?
There is an interesting play on words here between Paul, who is full of the Holy Spirit, and Elymas, who is full of deceit and fraud.
It is the same grammatical construction in saying the word for “full” – πίμπλημι [PIMPLEMI] – that is in verse 9.
So, in contrast to Paul, who is being led, guided, and powered by God the Holy Spirit in a distinct revelatory way, Elymas is full of deceit and fraud. This expresses his character. He is motivated and guided by deceit and fraud, and Paul addresses him immediately. He doesn’t mince words. He speaks the truth.
Not Bar-Joshua but Bar-diabolos, υἱός διάβολος [UIOS DIABOLOS].
10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?
So Elymas has directly set himself up as an opponent of the gospel and an opponent of God, and he is clearly in league with demonic forces. Whether he is demon-possessed or demon-influenced, we don’t know, but at the very least, he is demon-influenced and purporting the doctrines of demons. This means he has rejected the truth of God’s Word, and he is promoting false doctrine. He is an enemy of righteousness; he perverts the truth.
Acts 13:11
Acts 13:11
11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.” And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand.
A miracle occurs, showing that the power of the Holy Spirit is greater than all that Elymas can call upon.
Ironically, this is the first of Paul’s recorded miracles and it was performed in conflict with a Jew over giving the gospel to a Gentile
The result of this is that the proconsul believes.
Acts 13:12
Acts 13:12
12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.
Notice that the proconsol was astonished as in overwhelmed at the teaching/instruction. Notice that it was the teaching that caught his attention - not simply the miraculous blindness that Paul invoked. As has been the pattern throughout the book of Acts, the purpose of the miraculous deeds are to identify the performer of the deed as the sent ones of Yeshua HaMoshiach himself. The messenger is authenticated so that the message might be believed as authentic and to be trusted.
We mentioned a pastor named John Wember, speaking of the unbilbical Church Growth movement back in the seventies who went through various passages and said what is wrong with the church today is that we don’t believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to heal people and perform miracles. So we need to go back to what the apostles did and have (what he called) “power evangelism.”
The only problem with that is numerous examples in Scripture where miracles were performed, such as the miracles of Jesus, that didn’t convince many people. The ultimate issue is not intellectual; it doesn’t have anything to do with seeing signs and wonders; they are evidence, but they do not overwhelmingly convince people because there were tens of thousands of Jews in Judea at the time of Christ who witnessed those miracles and they just explained them away.
The core issue was that they rejected God, and it didn’t matter how many facts they saw or what miracles they saw; they rejected it. So, the whole idea is that if we had miracles today, as they did in Jesus’ time, people would change. No, they wouldn’t. They didn’t change then, and they will not change now. It is a matter of volition and a person’s desire to know God.
This proconsul had positive volition, and he believed. Notice that that is all he does. It is his response to the teaching of the Lord that generates his belief. The issue we must understand is that it is the content of the Word of God and the teaching and instruction from the Word of God that changes people’s lives under the teaching ministry of God, the Holy Spirit.
Luke presents Sergius Paulus as the first Gentile ruler to believe the gospel. Cyprus was a senatorial island, which means it was Roman-controlled. As a Roman official, Sergius was a Gentile. Unlike Cornelius (10:2), there is no evidence that Sergius attended the temple or was a God-fearer.
Note what was said about Paul by the Lord to Ananias about his purpose for Paul when Ananias was afraid.
Acts 9:15
Acts 9:15
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.
Having completed their time in Paphos, Paul and his party set sail and came to Perga in Pamphylia, verse 13.
Again, here is a picture. They are now in lower asia minor or what we now consider Turkey.
Acts 13:13
Acts 13:13
13 Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.
Luke doesn’t seem to make a big deal about what happens here.
Later, we learn that John leaves because he can’t hack it. There is rugged traveling and opposition; it is not easy, and he is too young; he just hasn’t got what it takes to stay with Paul and Barnabas.
Later on, this will cause a split between Paul and Barnabas. When Paul wants to go on his second missionary journey, Barnabas wants to take John Mark with him, and Paul says no, so Barnabas and John Mark go their way, and Paul goes on his second missionary journey.
Later on, we discover that John Mark, when he matured, and Paul became very close, and the apostle Paul depended upon him in 2 Timothy; Paul requested John Mark to bring him some of his possessions.
But at this stage, Paul shows he doesn’t want to put up with somebody who can’t cut it. He is not ready to be patient with some young kid unprepared to take on the rigors of travel.
Acts 13:14
Acts 13:14
14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.
This is a different city in the district of Pisidia up towards the center of Turkey.
They go into the synagogue. This was Paul’s pattern—Romans chapter one: to the Jew first and then to the Greek. Take the gospel to the Jew first.
Romans 1:16
Romans 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Why? Remember, the focal point of Acts from the very beginning is the command to the Jews to repent and to turn back to God, and the times of refreshing would come, as the apostle Peter said in his sermon. There is still that offer of the kingdom going out to the Jews, hoping there would be a turning among the Jewish people.
We will see this again in a few verses
Acts 13:46
Acts 13:46
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:2
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 18:5-6
Acts 18:5-6
5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
Acts 13:15
Acts 13:15
15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.”
The word “exhortation” is παράκλησις [PARAKLESIS] and refers to a challenge to the people—“say on.” This was an opportunity given to them, and it was typical that learned Jews came in and were asked to give a message to the congregation.
Acts 13:16-17
Acts 13:16-17
16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it.
In this sermon, Paul has three points to make.
He brilliantly summarizes several thousand years of Jewish history and six or seven books of the Bible, showing his complete understanding of the Old Testament.
Paul’s first main point is that God sovereignly chose the Jewish patriarchs and made an eternal and unconditional covenant with them, as seen in Genesis 12:1-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-12. God did these things, exalted the people, and brought them out of slavery.
Acts 13:18
Acts 13:18
18 Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness.
He next reminds them that the Exodus generation wasn’t chosen because they were so wonderful. They were grumblers and complainers. They revolted against Moses and God in the wilderness; nevertheless, God continued to work with them.
So we see here that the ultimate hero in the story is “the God of this people Israel,” mentioned in verse 17.
Acts 13:19
Acts 13:19
19 And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.
Paul synthesizes all of Genesis to Joshua to make the point that God controls Israel’s history.
Acts 13:20
Acts 13:20
20 “After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
—{all of which took} about four hundred and fifty years.”
There is a lot of discussion about the chronology there. The best way to understand this is that he is saying all these historical events took place in a period of about 450 years.
That would include the four centuries when the Israelites were in Egypt. From 1846 BC, when they first went to Egypt with Jacob and Joseph, through the exodus event in 1446. Then add to that forty years in the wilderness, which takes us up to 1406 BC, and seven more years under Joshua’s leadership to conquer the land, which takes us up to 1399 BC—447 years. That is rounded off to 450 years, so he is speaking in terms of generalities up until Samuel.
Acts 13:21
Acts 13:21
21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.
So, he first emphasizes that God entered into a covenant with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, making them a unique people.
No matter how badly they failed, God remained faithful to His promise and covenant.
Once that period of discipline ended in the wilderness, God provided them with a king. That was a lesson in what they didn’t want because Saul was disobedient to God and brought divine judgment on them.
Sometimes, we get the leaders we deserve because God is trying to teach us what we don’t want.
Acts 13:22
Acts 13:22
22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’
Did God make a mistake?
Because David indeed sinned.
But when God says that, He is not saying that David is no longer a sinner.
David is a man whose basic volitional orientation is to do what God wants him to do.
Sure, he is going to fail. But can it be said that our prime motivation in life is to do what God wants us to do and serve Him?
We will fail, but is that our primary motivation?
That is what it was with David.
Above all things, he desired to serve God.
God means “A man after His own heart.”
Acts 13:23
Acts 13:23
23 From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus—
Acts 13:24
Acts 13:24
24 after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Acts 13:25
Acts 13:25
25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.’
Here, we see the lead-up to the gospel. Notice how Paul approaches the gospel. Who is his audience? Jews who are knowledgeable of the Old Testament. That is why he can summarize the Old Testament in just a few short sentences. The audience knows all the details and knows all the facts. All Paul is doing is picking the high points so that he can weave them together to make his main point.
When we get to chapter fourteen, we see another approach in the presentation of the gospel. Paul has a completely different audience, one with no Bible background whatsoever.
Acts 13:26-31
Acts 13:26-31
26 “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. 28 And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. 29 Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 But God raised Him from the dead. 31 He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.
Acts 13:32-35
Acts 13:32-35
32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ 34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’ 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
Okay, Acts, chapter 13. Focus on these Messianic prophecies and promises in the Old Testament. This is important to get under our belt. We need to understand a few key passages in the Old Testament: Isaiah 53, and two psalms that are really important for Messianic prophecies that are the most frequently cited. They are Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. In the book of Hebrews, the writer weaves Psalm 110 and Psalm 2:7. These are fundamental verses for grasping many different features related to the Messianic kingship or the divine kingship of the Messiah and the deity of Christ. We need to look at those.
Psalm 2:7 is quoted and cited here in Acts 13:33. These verses aren’t easy to deal with because our English translations are not the best of the Hebrew text. Not only do we have that problem, but the Hebrew text has also been altered by virtue of Masoretic interference. The inspired original Hebrews were written in consonants, without vowels. But when the Masoretes, who were scribes in the early church age period and were responsible for copying and preserving the text and organizing and maintaining the text of the Hebrew scriptures as Christianity made greater and greater inroads into the Jewish community, the rabbis had a terrible time trying to protect their fortress and to keep Christians from using Hebrew scriptures to act as if they actually predicted Jesus. There were several places where they messed around with the words by changing the vowel points. This is what happened in the early part of the Christian era in order to preserve the pronunciation of the Hebrew words, the Masoretes developed a system of putting points, which were sometimes a single dot, three dots, or two dots, or a vertical or horizontal line under a letter and those stood for vowels, and you could change a word simply by changing the vowel points that were under the word.
It’s just like in English. If you take the word “here” and the word “hear” and you just write the consonants, they both are spelled identically as “hr”. But if you originally have the vowels as “here” and you change them to “hear”, you’ve changed the meaning of the word. “Hear” is completely different from the word “here,” so there are places in Messianic prophecies where keywords were tampered with by changing the vowel points to change the meaning of the word. We’ll see in Psalm 110:3 that it completely changes the meaning of the verse. In fact, it basically makes that verse untranslatable. It just doesn’t make sense. You can translate it, but it makes no sense in context. It’s just nonsense. Many Christian scholars believe this was an intentional effort on the part of the Masoretes to change the meaning of the text so it would not have an obvious Messianic reference and be related to a Messianic prophecy.
We will have to deal with some of those issues to understand these things. That might mean writing little notes down in the margin of your Bible so you can relate to those things.
As we look at the context, what Paul is saying to the synagogue in Acts 13 has as a background the Abrahamic Covenant. In the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12: 1-13, God promised Abraham a specific piece of real estate: “This land I will give to you and your generations in perpetuity.” He promised that there would be a seed that he would give Abraham descendants, and through his seed, all nations would be blessed. So, he promises a third thing: a worldwide blessing.
Genesis 12:1-13
Genesis 12:1-13
1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, From your family And from your father’s house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” 4 So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 Then Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people whom they had acquired in Haran, and they departed to go to the land of Canaan. So they came to the land of Canaan. 6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. 7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. 8 And he moved from there to the mountain east of Bethel, and he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; there he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord. 9 So Abram journeyed, going on still toward the South. 10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to dwell there, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. 12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”
The three components of the Abrahamic covenant are land, seed, and blessing. Later, all three aspects of the Abrahamic covenant are expanded in their independent covenants.
The land covenant is expanded in Deuteronomy 30, which begins in that first verse, talking about a covenant different from the one given at Mount Horeb, which is another name given for Mount Sinai. So, if it’s not the one given at Mount Horeb, which would be the Mosaic covenant, it’s a different covenant. This is a covenant related to God’s promise that Israel would eternally possess the land. Now, they wouldn’t enjoy possession unless they were rightly related to God spiritually, but the ownership of the land, the title of the land, was theirs forever. If they were disobedient, God would remove them from the land. In the Old Testament, we have an example of this, where God first brought in the Assyrians in 722 B.C. to remove the northern kingdom of Israel. Then, in 586 B.C., the southern kingdom of Judah was defeated by the Babylonians, and most, but not all, of the Jews were deported to other nations and removed from their historic homeland. But they never lost the title to the land. The Assyrians followed their policy of repopulating the land by redistributing other defeated populations into areas they conquered. that way, they dispersed these ethnic groups so they couldn’t join together in a revolt, and so they brought in a lot of ethnic groups from around the Empire and repopulated the area of the northern kingdom.
But there were still members of those northern kingdoms ten tribes in the area. They had fled south to Judea during the invasion by the Assyrians, so you didn’t lose the ten tribes. That’s one of those historic myths that they’re the lost ten tribes. Maybe some historian lost them because he didn’t believe in the Bible, but they weren’t lost. God knew where they were, but the Bible clearly states that they moved south when they saw the Assyrians coming. They evacuated their homes, and they moved south, and therefore, all those tribes had remnant groups that continued in the land. Then, in 586 B.C., they were removed. Now, for seventy years, they were out of the land, but they still owned it. That’s demonstrated historically because God brought them back to the land, and the people that had come in during the intervening period had no rights to the land.
Now, that seventy-year period set a historic precedent for a second time when the Jewish people would be out of the land. It wasn’t seventy years this time. It’s almost two thousand years from A.D. 70 until the early part of the twentieth century. If the Jewish people still owned the land and still had a right of return in 538 B.C., they still have the right of return in 1948 A.D.. It doesn’t matter what the U.N. says, it doesn’t matter what the European Union says, it doesn’t matter what any Arab leader says, the only people who have the title deed to that piece of real estate are the people who God says have the title to it, which is the Jewish people.
That’s the only piece of real estate in the world where God has guaranteed a title deed. Americans don’t have a right to our land. The British don’t have a Divine right to their land. The Germans don’t have a Divine right to their land. The Russians don’t have a Divine right to their land. Neither the Japanese, nor the Chinese … nor anybody else has a Divine right to their piece of real estate. There’s only one piece of real estate on the whole planet that God has given a Divine contract to and has sworn to, and as a matter of fact, that’s that piece of real estate between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean that God has given to the Jewish people. That’s the land covenant.
The second covenant promised an eternal descendant to David who would sit on his throne forever and ever. The eternal aspect of that indicated that whoever fulfilled that would have eternality as part of their character, which would indicate and hint at a deity that would be a Divine king. That’s important for understanding our passage. And then, a promise of a new nature came when the New covenant was put into effect. The New Covenant is said to be between God and Judah and Israel. It’s never said to be with the church. When God said when He brought that into effect there would be a new heart among all the Jewish people. This doesn’t occur until the Messianic king comes to establish His kingdom. When you look at all the different passages related to the New Covenant, the ideas are present in a number of other passages; they all come into existence at the time when the king takes His throne when He is crowned a king, and He takes His place upon the throne of David.
Also important is this coronation imagery, the crowning of the king and establishing Him upon the throne, which are inherent to the passage that Paul uses in Psalm 2.
So we have to understand that the Abrahamic covenant is a backdrop to what Paul says in Acts 13.
The Davidic covenant is also a backdrop. There are three passages on the Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7: 12-16 is the primary passage.
2 Samuel 7:12-16
2 Samuel 7:12-16
12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”
Psalm 89 is a meditation upon the Abrahamic covenant. It’s 54 verses long, divided into three sections. The second part (vv. 19–37) is a review of the Davidic covenant, how God chose and established David as his anointed, and what promises God made to him in the covenant.
Psalm 89:19-37
Psalm 89:19-37
19 Then You spoke in a vision to Your holy one, And said: “I have given help to one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people. 20 I have found My servant David; With My holy oil I have anointed him, 21 With whom My hand shall be established; Also My arm shall strengthen him. 22 The enemy shall not outwit him, Nor the son of wickedness afflict him. 23 I will beat down his foes before his face, And plague those who hate him. 24 “But My faithfulness and My mercy shall be with him, And in My name his horn shall be exalted. 25 Also I will set his hand over the sea, And his right hand over the rivers. 26 He shall cry to Me, ‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.’ 27 Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My mercy I will keep for him forever, And My covenant shall stand firm with him. 29 His seed also I will make to endure forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. 30 “If his sons forsake My law And do not walk in My judgments, 31 If they break My statutes And do not keep My commandments, 32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes. 33 Nevertheless My lovingkindness I will not utterly take from him, Nor allow My faithfulness to fail. 34 My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. 35 Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: 36 His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; 37 It shall be established forever like the moon, Even like the faithful witness in the sky.” Selah
1 Chronicles 17:11-14
1 Chronicles 17:11-14
11 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. 14 And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”
In Acts 13:32, Paul says,
Acts 13:32
Acts 13:32
32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers.
which is represented by one word in the Greek EUANGELIZO [εὐαγγελίζω], which is a first-person plural which is where you get the ‘we’ and ANGELIZO [εὐαγγελίζω] is to announce good news, to announce good tidings, to announce good information bringing you a great message. Now, that is defined in the next phrase as the promise. What is the good information? There is an end dash between “tidings” and “that”. Sometimes editors will use an end dash; sometimes they’ll use a colon, which indicates that the following phrase, which begins with “that,” explains the content of the good message, the good news. The good news is about the promise that was made to the fathers.
In America, if you hear “the fathers,” you may think of the Founding Fathers in 1776. But if you’re Jewish, sitting in a synagogue in the 1st century, and you hear the reference to the fathers, you’re going to think of the fathers of the nation of Israel, the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The emphasis is on the male line because it is the male line that will end with the male descendant, who is the heir of David, the king, and the Messiah.
Sometimes, folks today get upset because the women are left out. They think God is a misogynist. Two options exist here. Either God is a misogynist, in which case He is a sinner and all not right, and God is really a nasty, evil God, OR the people have their mentality all twisted out of shape, and they’re nasty and evil because they have distorted the role of women and men. The reality is that people, because of sin, have their sense of priorities and sense of identity all corrupted because of sin. They’re the ones that are out of order. So, the promise was made to the fathers. This is a statement that is very common to the Apostle Paul.
We need to insert some information from Romans, chapter 4. Just a tour.
Romans 4:13
Romans 4:13
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Notice in Romans 4:13 that we have use of the word “promise,” “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the word was not through the Law..” Paul is emphasizing there that receiving the promise which had to do with the promise God made to Abraham through the Abrahamic covenant related to the Israelites and to justification and future salvation. The realization of that promise was not only on the basis of human obedience through the Law but to the righteousness of faith. That is simply trusting and believing in God that He would give it.
This is the basis in verse 9, where Paul says,
Romans 4:8-9
Romans 4:8-9
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
In other words, you can’t be righteous enough to get the promise’s blessing but receive it when you trust in Christ as Savior. So, the promise to be heir of the world, which has to do with salvation, was not to Abraham or to his seed through the Law. That’s the point. The promise wasn’t to be realized through the Law but through the righteousness that comes from faith.
In verse 14, Paul went on to say,
Romans 4:14
Romans 4:14
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
It’s either faith or works, as far as Paul is concerned and that’s true in the Old Testament. He’s going to give a classic example here. In verse 15, he says,
“Because the Law brings about wrath [condemnation] for where there is no law, there is no violation.”
Romans 4:16
Romans 4:16
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
Romans 4:18-21
Romans 4:18-21
18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.
This is where Abraham mixes his faith with the promise of God, and realizing it’s of God’s grace that he’s going to receive the promise. Now that’s Romans 4.
He says the same things in Galatians 3. There are three representative verses here but the passage is much broader than these. Let’s get the context starting in verse 13,
Galatians 3:13
Galatians 3:13
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),
Now the curse of the Law was that unless you were completely clean you couldn’t get into the presence of God and no animal sacrifice could do that.
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law having become a curse for us—for it is written, “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Now, what’s interesting is that if you do a word study on the word ἐπαγγελία—EPANGELIA, which is the word translated promise. You run that in the New Testament, that word promise relates to two things, basically. One is the promise that Jesus made in Acts 1 of the coming of the Holy Spirit, which occurs in Acts 2. So that’s one promise referred to, but that’s a New Testament promise. The other use of the word promise is what we see in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2, which relates to the promise to Abraham. So those are the two big promises you have in the Bible: the promise to Abraham in the Old Testament and the promise of the Holy Spirit coming upon believers in the New Testament.
So in Galatians 3:16, Paul writes,
Galatians 3:16
Galatians 3:16
“Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.”
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
Now notice he says the text in the Old Testament does not say to “seeds” [plural, as of many}. This is one reason we believe in verbal inspiration; each word, whether it’s singular or plural, is significant because Paul looks back and says it doesn’t say “seeds” [plural}. You can’t mess around just because you don’t like the case, the number, or something else grammatically about the word. Every word is what it is because that’s what the Holy Spirit intended. It doesn’t say “seeds as of many” but “as of one” and “to your seed which is Christ.” So, Christ is the one who becomes the effective agent of bringing about the promise of the blessing. He goes on to say in verse 17,
Galatians 3:17
Galatians 3:17
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.
So, if the promise was made to Abraham based on faith, that’s 430 years before the Law, so the Law is not significant for realizing the blessing because the Law is against grace. So, the Law is out; it’s not crucial for salvation. The Abrahamic covenant doesn’t have its fulfillment under the Law but in the coming of Christ. Then he says in verse 18,
Galatians 3:18
Galatians 3:18
18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
That’s his logic. It’s grace, grace, grace. God freely gives us based upon His character, who Jesus Christ is, and what He did upon the cross. That’s the key, remembering that. Okay, so Galatians 3 reiterates his emphasis on the promise.
Now Ephesians:
Ephesians 2:12
Ephesians 2:12
12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Covenants of promise: the Abrahamic covenant, the Land covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the New covenant, those covenants, according to Romans 9, belong to the Jewish people forever and ever and ever. They are eternal covenants, so the Gentiles are considered strangers because they weren’t part of the covenant contract. They’re not party of the first part, which was God, or party of the second part, which was Israel.
Ephesians 2:13 continues,
Ephesians 2:13 continues,
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
So, we become partakers of the promises of Abraham by virtue of our position in Christ. Okay, that’s why Paul emphasizes this thing again and again and again. When we’re saved, we’re identified with Christ, we’re made part of His body, and by virtue of that, we become heirs of the promise.
End of 3/23/2025
End of 3/23/2025
Sunday, March 30, 2025
Sunday, March 30, 2025
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are working through Paul’s first missionary journey having been sent out through the agency of God the Holy Spirit from the very important church at Antioch.
We are in Acts, chapter 13, where we are studying Paul’s message to the synagogue in Pisidian, Antioch. It was in that context that we see Paul, for the first time, truly proclaim the gospel. He is proclaiming the gospel to this synagogue, and he approaches it in a way that is quite different from the way he will approach it later, in the next chapter, where he addresses a Gentile congregation.
He knows that the Gentiles have no frame of reference in terms of who Jesus is, in terms of who God is. They don’t really understand what sin is, and they don’t comprehend the foundational doctrines of the Old Testament.
But a Jewish audience in the first century would understand, having a background in the Torah. He is going to present the case that Jesus Christ has solved the problem of sin as predicted in the Old Testament and has come to give righteousness to His people so that they might be justified. This theme of predicted provision for justification runs all the way through the Old Testament.
In Acts 13:32, Paul says,
Acts 13:32
Acts 13:32
32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers.
Now, what’s interesting is that if you do a word study on the word ἐπαγγελία—EPANGELIA, which is the word translated promise. The word means an announcement. The announcement is a declaration to do something with implication of obligation to carry out what is stated: this is a promise or pledge. When we follow up on what that promise is, that word promise relates to two things, basically.
One is the promise that Jesus made in Acts 1 of the coming of the Holy Spirit, which occurs in Acts 2.
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
So that’s one promise referred to, but that’s a New Testament promise. The other use of the word promise is what we see in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2, which relates to the promise to Abraham. So those are the two big promises you have in the Bible: the promise to Abraham in the Old Testament and the promise of the Holy Spirit coming upon believers in the New Testament.
One other verse is Exodus 12:25, which is the first use of the word promise in the Old Testament.
Exodus 12:25
Exodus 12:25
25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service.
Who did He promise it to? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Abrahamic covenant,
“then you will keep this service.”
So contextually, when doing a word study on this word “promise” as it is used in Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2 and 3, it relates to that Abrahamic covenant promise. This is what Paul is bringing out for us in Acts 13. He’s talking to a Jewish audience that is extremely familiar with the contents of the Old Testament. Now, most of the time when you and I are talking to anyone, especially of a Jewish background, they’re as ignorant of the Old Testament as Gentiles are unless they happen to come out of some Orthodox background or training where they’ve been taught more. They’re just like a blank slate, as it were. What Paul does in Acts 13 is to start weaving these Old Testament predictions together for us. He says there’s been the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant.
Then he said in verse 33,
Acts 13:33
Acts 13:33
33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
Who are their children? To whom does this refer? That refers to the descendants of the fathers, so this is addressed to Jews. He’s addressing a Jewish audience and trying to connect the dots to show that Jesus fulfills these promises. He’s using the basic word group here from pleroo [πληροω], which is used repeatedly to indicate scriptural fulfillment. He uses a perfect tense verse. Now, that’s important because it shows that he’s referencing an action completed in the past with the results that continue. So God fulfilled, at some point in the past, completely fulfilled this with reference to us, their children, “in that He raised up Jesus..” He uses the standard word for resurrection ANISTEMI [ἀνίστημι]. So now he’s making his point. He’s changed from the promise to the confirmation of the promise. What confirms the promise? It’s the resurrection. See, the resurrection is important, not in reference to the work of salvation but in terms of the application and implication of salvation to people.
So now he says by connecting it to another level that this resurrection, showing that it was predicted in the Old Testament, he goes to Psalm 2. He quotes Psalm 2:7 which reads,
Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7
7 “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.” The word translated into the Greek of the Septuagint sometimes gets a little technical
Sometimes, people have no idea the Bible wasn’t originally written in English. “If the King James was good enough for Jesus its good enough for me! Now, we laugh about things like that, but the sad thing is these people make up the majority of evangelical Christians. It’s sad because we have pastors who don’t know much better, and they can’t teach them and train them. We need to be in prayer that God will raise young men who have a passion for knowing the Word of God, get off their rear end, go to seminary, get training to fill pulpits and teach people.
There are a lot of people, I think, who are hungry. It’s just that they’ve been starved to death by ignorant shepherds and ignorant pastors. We need to pray that we will have a new generation of young men who will have the spiritual courage to get training and to trust the Lord for their life and not be so concerned about the physical and logistical sustenance for themselves and their families but would go to seminary and get trained. It’s just really sad. The average evangelical today is just not very bright, and they make decisions based on this abysmal ignorance. I heard it said about the Baptists: They’re wonderful people, but their theology is a mile wide and an inch deep, and I think they think it’s an inch wide and a mile deep.” That’s our problem. People think they know the Bible, and they’re ignorant, and they have no humility. That is why the evangelical church in America is failing, and that is why we’re coming under judgment in time from God because people don’t want to know the truth. So, we have all kinds of problems.
This verse comes from the Old Testament, “You are My Son. Today, I have begotten You.” When you read that in English, a couple of questions should occur. When is today? When is this said? When is this spoken? When is today mentioned in the verse? And what does it mean to say, “I have begotten You.” If you look at the Greek, it is a perfect active indicative of γεννάω GENNAO which refers to a completed past action. So, when this is spoken, it would be understood as “today I have already begotten you.” So, it’s not talking about the time the begetting takes place. But this word is used in another important Old Testament psalm, and we have to see the connection between the two, and that’s the one we mentioned earlier, Psalm 110:3. So let’s turn there because we have to connect some of these dots.
We’ve done that in some other ways, in past series especially when I talked about the whole issue of the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father and the significance of that ascension to our present power and position in Christ. That is something, if you’ve never studied that, it’s heavy, but you need to master that if you want to get out of diapers.
Psalm 110:1 is a verse that is quoted in the New Testament probably more than any other Old Testament passage.
It’s quoted in Matthew 22:44 and in the parallel passages in the Gospels. It’s quoted in all three of the synoptics.
t’s quoted in Acts 2 in Peter’s sermon.
It’s quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:25.
It’s quoted in Hebrews 1:13
and 1 Peter 3:22
and it’s quoted here in Acts 13
The last phrase here relates to our quote in Acts 13.
So in Psalm 110:1,
Psalm 110:1
Psalm 110:1
1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
Now, who is the first Lord? If you look at your English text, the first Lord is in the upper case. That is always a translation of the sacred Tetragrammaton, the proper name of God, Yahweh. It’s wrongly translated as Jehovah. Jehovah is really a compound word made up of the four consonants of the sacred Tetragrammaton, the holy name of God, and then, because the Jews didn’t want to pronounce that, in antiquity, they would pronounce Adonai. They put under the consonants of Yahweh the Hebrew vowels of Adonai, which put together gave them Yehovah. They are not real words. They wrote the vowels there to remind people to say Adonai and not to read the word out.
Today, in modern times, you will find Jews using a circumlocution yaschem, which means the name, so when they see the name of God there, they read yaschem and refer to God as “the name”. So we have the first Lord Yahweh, and the second Lord is the word Adonai, so here you have two divine beings discussing something. The first one says to the second one, “Sit at My right hand.” Now, some people say the Jews were monotheists, but the monotheism of the Old Testament wasn’t a singular monotheism. That came later in post-second temple rabbinical Judaism. It wasn’t there to begin with. It’s not here. You have two divine beings who are in unity, so the first one says to the second one, who is the Messiah, “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies Your footstool.”
This occurs immediately after the ascension of Christ. God the Father, Yahweh, tells God the Son to sit and wait. We’re going to wait out a period of time, and that’s the church age, and when that comes to completion, there will be a judgment on the earth like nothing there has ever been. That’s what we call the tribulation or Daniel’s seventieth week when that ends, based on Daniel, chapter 7. That’s when the kingdom is going to be given. That is when the second one will receive His kingdom. His enemies will be made His footstool at the Battle of Armageddon. The point I want to remind you of is this huge battle occurs just before the coronation and installation of the king.
The second verse says,
Psalm 110:2
Psalm 110:2
2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!
In the second verse, the rule is represented as being established through harsh means and strong discipline, “The rod of your strength,” and it is ruling in the midst of Your enemies. The Messiah will establish His kingdom in the midst of hostility. He will put down the revolt of the kings of the earth.
Now our critical verse.
Psalm 110:3
Psalm 110:3
3 Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth.
YLDTK
Now, what can this mean: “From the womb of the dawn, you have the dew of your youth.”
No idea what that means. It doesn’t even make sense in English.
Do you see anything about birth here? Nothing. Okay.
YaLDuTeyKa = the dew of your youth
YeLiDTiKa = to give birth
The word on the top is YaLDuTeyKa. Remember in Hebrew you only have consonants in the original text. What I did was capitalize the consonants. So what you had was YLDTK. Now if you look at the second word, you have the same consonants but the first word has different vowels from the second one. They are different words. They have the same consonants and different vowels, which make them different words. The first word represents the vowels the Masoretes inserted when they were putting together the text in the 7th, 8th, 9th century A.D. The second lower word is translated as “to give birth” which gives an entirely different meaning to the verse.
So if you look at it that way, Psalm 110 becomes translated, something like the Septuagint translation. The second reading is how the rabbis translated the Septuagint into Greek in the 2nd century before Christ. So, how they translated it into Greek indicates that they saw the second reading, not the first one. So we have a historical witness from the time of Christ and before that read and translated this verse in a completely different way from the way the 8th and 9th century A.D translates it. Now, why did they change the translation later on? Because they wanted to stifle the influence of Christians who claimed this was Messianic prophecy.
The Septuagint is translated,
“In majestic holiness from the womb of the dawn, I have begotten You.”
Think about that. Quite a different sentence but it makes a lot more sense. The Lord [God the Father] said to My Lord [The Messiah], “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool. The Lord will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, Rule in the midst of Your enemies. Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power, in Holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew.” What does the term “womb of the dawn” mean? It means from eternity past, from the beginning of the beginning. That’s the imagery of the dawn. So the Messiah King, the Divine King, is stated to be begotten from the womb of the dawn. Now, this relates back also to Numbers 24: 17, which talks about there will be a star coming forth from Jacob, from the tribe of Jacob.
Numbers 24:17
Numbers 24:17
17 “I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel, And batter the brow of Moab, And destroy all the sons of tumult.
That is this birth relationship there. All I want to show here is the connection to this word begotten from yalad, showing that Psalm 110 presents the Messianic king as a divine king seated at the right hand of God the Father awaiting a future victory.
We have the ascension of Christ, who goes up through the first and second heavens to the third heaven, and there he sits in a position of passivity at the right hand of God the Father. This is not His own throne. He has not been enthroned yet. He is sitting there until something. He’s waiting for something. Until God, the Father will defeat His enemies and give Him the kingdom. That’s yet future from now. It hasn’t happened now. That’s the backdrop for understanding Psalm 2.
So hold your place here and let’s go to Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is one of the greatest Messianic psalms in the Old Testament. It’s quoted several times in the New Testament.
Psalm 2:1-3
Psalm 2:1-3
1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us.”
It starts off with a question, focusing on the fact there is a military conflict taking place on the earth, the nations are raging, and the kings are gathering for battle against the Lord’s anointed. Now, the Lord is mentioned in verse 2 as an upper-case Lord. That refers to Yahweh and against his Mashiach, His Messiah.
The kings of the earth are saying what’s reported in verse 3. “Let us tear their fetters apart..” In other words, they want to throw off all of this God Stuff. They think, “God just wants to keep us from having fun. He doesn’t want to let us run our lives the way we want to; He doesn’t want us to run the kingdoms on the earth the way we want to. You know, God doesn’t believe in global warming, and we think global warming is right, so we’ve got to get rid of God. God doesn’t like gay marriage, so we have to get rid of God because He won’t let us have gay marriage. God is for the ownership of private property. We’re for socialism, so we’ve got to get rid of God because God won’t let the kings have the money. He wants the people to have the money. God is in favor of self-defense, so He wants people to have weapons to defend themselves, and the government says it wants to be the real messiah who protects the people. The kings want to throw off divine mandates and divine government. What their representatives are saying is “Let us tear their [God’s} fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!”
Then there’s a pause. Verse 4 says,
Psalm 2:4
Psalm 2:4
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.
“He who sits in the Heavens, laughs.”
That’s God. He’s laughing at these puny little politicians. He’s laughing at the Democrats. He’s laughing at the Republicans and at all the Christian socialists. He’s saying, “Christian socialists? What an oxymoron.” Christian socialism is neither Christian nor socialism. It’s just an abortion of politics but that’s what runs and has destroyed Europe. So God is laughing at all these things. He’s laughing at the Marxists and the Stalinists and the “Chicoms” and everybody else.
“The Lord scoffs at them [holds them in derision}.”
God doesn’t respect diversity. God hates diversity because diversity is human beings, creatures asserting themselves against God. He hates that so He laughs at them. God has no respect for rebellious creation.
Psalm 2:5
Psalm 2:5
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
In verse 6 God speaks,
Psalm 2:6
Psalm 2:6
6 “Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.”
Now, has God set His king on Zion yet? No, it didn’t happen at the First Advent. It’s not happening now. It’s in the future. So that tells us the setting of this psalm is sometime in the future when the world’s kings are engaged in a massive military campaign against God. This same situation we have referenced in Psalm 110:2.
Now we come to our verse, Psalm 2:7 where Messiah speaks,
Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7
7 “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
So sometime in the future God, the Son, is going to take charge and when He is crowned king and takes the throne, He will remind the world of the decree that God made with reference to Him from eternity past.
Verse 7, “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord. He said to Me, You are my Son. Today I have begotten You.”
Now, when did this begetting take place? In eternity past. But today is referencing the declaration of His begottenness.
“I will declare the decree.”
This is the Messiah talking,
“the Lord has said to Me. You are my Son. Today I have begotten You.”
We have to look at the verb begotten. What that’s telling us is something very significant. Once again, we have to look at it and recognize that when you look at the vowels that are put in there, although all the grammar and the lexicons say this should be in what is called the qal stem, which is the basic usage stem in Hebrew, it could easily also be understood as a hiphel and the hiphel is the causative stem. Either way, both stems, which is what you need to take away from this; both stems are used to indicate a declaration of something. It’s not saying today I have begotten you, but that today I declare you are the begotten one. That’s an important difference. It’s not talking about birth. Begotten is not a term for birth pangs. It’s a term for indicating a distinct relationship of nature. It may involve being born, but it focuses on a son having the exact nature as the father. Here, we see that the Son has the same eternal divine nature. The One begotten has the exact eternal divine nature as the one making the declaration. So, the Father/Son language here should be understood as figurative, not literal.
This is unlike Mormonism, which says that God [Elohim] came down and had sex. That’s not what this is talking about. This is talking about God, the Father, who represents His relationship to the second person of the trinity as one of a relationship of essence. The pagan religions all had the gods having sex with humans or one another, but never in Hebrew. They wouldn’t stand for that. That was blasphemy, so the term “you are my son” indicates that the son’s nature is the same as that of the father. What we have in this passage is an implied comparison or metaphor between the coronation of the king where the crowning of the king at the beginning of His reign is being used as analogous to birth as the beginning of life. So this is the beginning of the reign of the king.
The declaration is a declaration related to the beginning of the Messiah’s reign on the earth. This is quoted in the same way as Hebrews 1, which has the same meaning. The verb ‘begotten’ is also used in John1:18,
John 1:18
John 1:18
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 3:16
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Only with “begotten” indicates a unique class of the word, that this is a uniquely generated person, not born but generated. That is the exact language used in the Nicene Creed to emphasize that Jesus was begotten and not made. Begotten does not mean created; it doesn’t mean made; it doesn’t mean birth; it means generated. An eternal generation is the way the ancient church fathers clarified this. This is a declaration that is made with reference to the beginning of the Messiah’s reign on the earth.
That gives us the core meaning Paul is referencing in Acts 13. Because you’re not Jewish and I’m not Jewish, we don’t have a lot of in-depth facility with the Old Testament theology on these passages. We have to spend a lot of time just explaining this quote that Paul has from Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33 so that the significance of this verse makes some sense for us because he starts off first of all in verse 32 that what he’s proclaiming is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. Yet in verse 33 he’s going to connect this to David and to the Davidic king Messiah and the Messianic rule of Psalm 2:7. Then when we get to verse 34, he’s going to connect that to the resurrection in Isaiah 53
Paul’s Gospel Message to Jews Revealed in the Davidic Covenant Acts 13:13-39
Paul’s Gospel Message to Jews Revealed in the Davidic Covenant Acts 13:13-39
It’s very instructive to be able to trace this theme related to tsaddiyq righteousness in the Old Testament. We saw in our previously that Paul begins by saying, “We declare to you glad tidings..”
We could translate it as “We proclaim to you the good news” or “We proclaim to you the gospel.” Gospel means good news. It’s derived from the Greek word EUANGELIZO [e] uaggelizw], which is where we get our word “evangelism.” Paul is doing evangelism here. If we want to learn how to do evangelism, one way to do this is to examine the content of these messages.
We have noted that there are two words that are used in the New Testament for preaching or proclaiming the gospel.
One is euaggelizo [e)uaggelizw], which means to announce good news. If you break it down etymologically, the EU at the beginning is a prefix where ‘u’ is usually pronounced like a ‘v’. It indicates something good. If you stick it at the beginning of a word, you’re saying you’re doing something positive, something good. We see it in an English word: someone gives a well-crafted statement called a eulogy, which conveys a positive message about the person. It’s the same kind of thing. Angelos [a)ggeloj] is the word for messenger, and anggelizo [a)ggelizw] is the verb for making an announcement. When we add the EU for a prefix, it announces good things. It’s announcing the gospel or good news. So, he’s declaring this good news as something that had been announced previously and related to the promise made to the Fathers. That’s a reference referring to the patriarchs of Judaism.
The Bible often relates it to the patriarchs because the emphasis from Adam onward in Scripture is on the male as the head of the home, and the seed terminology emphasized from the very beginning of Genesis 3:15 indicates that the seed was to pass through a male line. It’s not a matter of prejudice. God’s not putting down women. Modern women who feel slighted by this are likely reflecting that they have a limited understanding of the themes of Scripture and why these themes are present. It is tracing that lineage down to the Messiah, who would be a man.
Acts 13:33, Paul says
Acts 13:33
33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
Even in English, you can pick up that he’s talking about raising up Jesus. It discusses the resurrection and includes the Ascension, where Christ is raised, as well as the fact that He’s the uniquely begotten Son of the Father. He’s the Son of God, indicating He has full deity, identical to the Father. He’s raised up, and Paul’s going to use this raising up terminology in relation to what is said about David being raised up, making that connection there, showing that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.
Psalm 110 is a Messianic psalm closely connected in its message to Psalm 2. In both psalms, there’s the representation of the Messiah, who is in a place where He is waiting to be given the Kingdom. This is the picture we have here. It’s filled out in Daniel, chapter 7, where the Messiah is referred to as the Son of Man. He is waiting for the Ancient Days [God, the Father] to give Him the kingdom. When the Ancient of Days gives the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Kingdom, that’s when He comes and defeats the armies of man. It’s something predicted for a future time when there will be a massive military conflict between the Son of Man, who is the Messiah, who will come to earth and defeat the armies of man.
There is a post-millennial heresy that developed out of the charismatic movement in the 1940s, and it’s the idea that the church will bring in the Kingdom. This development emerged from the healing movements of the 1940s and 1950s, where interpreters reinterpreted army and battle metaphors as a battle between the church and pagans in the world today. Through allegorization, they took various passages, such as the army in the book of Joel. Sometimes, it is referred to as Joel’s army, and then they would engage in what we call Rorschach exegesis. You know the Rorschach test consists of ink blots, and you’re asked to describe what you see in each one. Whatever comes to your mind, that’s what you say. Something looks familiar here and sounds like something over there, so they combine them. And that’s a lot of the kind of thing they had going on. That’s one of the verses they would cite in support of their view in Psalm 110. The idea of this battle that’s coming forth,
Psalm 110:2
Psalm 110:2
2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!
So that’s the call: they believed, for volunteering for this militant army of Joel.
This is not what the text is talking about. It’s talking about the fact that when you put it together contextually with other passages that talk about the same situation that the Lord, one Divine Person, says to “My Lord”, the only other Lord that would be superior to David would be another divine person,
Psalm 110:1
Psalm 110:1
1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
So, the position of the second Lord is one of passivity, not militancy, during the time preceding His being given the Kingdom. The Kingdom comes only when it’s given to Him, not through the gradual process that occurs in post-millennialism.
Now these post-millennial dominion theologians. They were into all of this Lord’s army and “naming and claiming” all of this stuff for the Lord, and it’s just the nastiest, gnarliest pit of bad theology you can imagine. This is now happening today again with a Church just south of us down in Redding, called the Bethel Church under the leading of Bill Johnson. a prominent hub for teachings that emphasize cultural transformation, revival, and supernatural ministry. The church is also closely linked to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement, which shares similar theological emphases.
The “Seven Mountains” concept refers to seven key spheres or areas of influence in society that believers are encouraged to impact for cultural transformation. It is often associated with dominion theology and the Seven Mountains Mandate. Here are the seven “mountains”:
1. Religion: Spiritual institutions and belief systems.
2. Family: The structure and values within households and relationships.
3. Education: Schools, universities, and the dissemination of knowledge.
4. Government: Political systems, laws, and governance.
5. Media: Communication platforms that shape public opinion and deliver information.
6. Arts & Entertainment: Cultural expression through creativity, including films, music, and sports.
7. Business: Commerce, economics, and the marketplace.
Advocates believe that influencing these spheres can help advance God’s kingdom on earth. This teaching is often tied to movements like the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Would you like to explore its history or critiques?
That’s what this fringe element wants to do. There’s a lot more that goes along with this. One of the major players in this was a man named C. Peter Wagner. Peter Wagner was considered one of the foremost spokesmen for this kind of group. He was the head of the missions department at Fuller Theological Seminary in the 1960s and 1970s and is considered the father of the church growth movement. One of his great disciples is Rick Warren, who is in southern California and who has the purpose driven church. It’s not the Christ-driven or the Holy Spirit-driven church, but the purpose-driven church. I mentioned a book written by Paul Smith, the brother of Chuck Smith, on the new evangelical spirituality that traces many of these concepts. Sometimes it’s just amazing. You don’t know what’s going on. It’s not conspiracy-driven stuff. It’s just showing there are influences.
Fuller Seminary went off the rails in the 60s because they rejected the inspiration of Scripture. They began to get involved in more and more of this kind of thing. There was Peter Wagner and another guy, John Wimber.
He came out of a Quaker background and became part of the Calvary Chapel movement. Initially, he wasn’t sure about tongues, but they were having a church service one night, and they had this guy who had formerly been involved with Calvary Chapel. He was one of the three men who, in a sense, influenced and helped start the Jesus movement in Haight-Ashbury and Berkeley in the late 1960s, known as Lonnie Frisbee.
Lonnie Frisbee was a weird character. He eventually got arrested for propositioning a male undercover police officer in a city park and died of AIDS in 1993. That part of his life was primarily hidden in the late 1970s. He came to John Wimber’s church in Anaheim CA in the late 1970s, during a Mother’s Day service. Lonnie Frisbee was invited to speak, and he called upon the Holy Spirit in a dramatic way, leading to a powerful and controversial experience where many people reportedly fell “slain in the Spirit.”
In essence he supposedly called the Holy Spirit down upon this unsuspecting congregation, led by John Wimber, and everyone fell to the ground.
That’s the report they gave. I doubt that all of that is true; it’s probably exaggerated but this led to the whole power evangelism, John Wimber’s signs and wonders, the third wave of the Holy Spirit. That movement later gave rise rise to the five offices of the church, new institutions of apostles and prophets, that all of this came about. It’s just a spider web of horrible theology and doctrines.
1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
This is talking about the Lord when He comes with His saints in Revelation 19, who are the raptured, resurrected, and rewarded church-age believers who come with Him at the end of the Tribulation to defeat the Antichrist, as the False Prophet, and the armies of the kings of the earth.
That’s the picture you get, and the thing we looked at was just the various mistranslations in Psalm 110:3 that throw off the Messianic interpretation. I pointed out that you have these two words here in Hebrew.
YaLDuTeyKa = the dew of your youth
YeLiDTiKa = to give birth
You have only consonants in the original Hebrew text as written by David. He only wrote consonants. That’s all they had. The vowels were not inserted. Vowels did not develop within the alphabet of the Jews until after the destruction of the second temple. So, if you’re reading Hebrew, it was unpointed. The vowels are called points so the vowel points indicate how these words to be pronounced and a group of scribes were responsible for overseeing the preservation and the transmission of the Hebrews Scriptures. They were called the Masserites. Now, they developed some ways to write the vowels in words in order to preserve pronunciation of the words so that if the speaking of it was lost, the words would be preserved by these vowel points. But just like in English, when I use the example of the word ‘hear’ and the word ’here’, if you just write those words as consonants, they’re the same, ‘hr’. But here and hear have completely different meanings.
The Massarites in Messianic proclamations manipulated the text not by changing the consonants, but by changing the vowels. So that, yalduteyka to the vowels on the word to the left yelidtika, changes the meaning. The word on the right is not in the Masoretic text in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that is the word that is translated into the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated before Christ, so it represents in its Greek translation a Hebrew original that differs in places from the Masoretic text we use, primarily due to these types of changes.
I pointed out last time that Psalm 110:3
Psalm 110:3
3 Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth.
in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the dawn you have the dew of your youth” should be translated to indicate that Christ “from the time of your begottenness you have the dew of the beginning.”
This indicates the begotten One is eternal. So that word on the right is tied over to the birth of the begottenness of the Son in Psalm 2:7.
Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7
7 “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Now that connection is what I was pointing out last time.
Paul doesn’t quote Psalm 110 in Acts 13, but that’s an important thing to understand that this idea of begotten from yalad, which means to give birth, to be begotten. In Israel today, you see a group of kids and an individual young boy; he’s a yalad. If it’s a young girl, she’s a yalada. If you see a bunch of kids, they’re yaladim. So “yad” as a verb means to give birth, and how you structure that noun indicates whether it’s a male child, a female child, or just a bunch of children. However, it retains the concept of begottenness, which differs from being created or made, as defined in the Nicene Creed, where Jesus is described as the second person of the Trinity, begotten but not made, thereby emphasizing his eternality. As the Son of God, He shares the same divine essence as God.
In Acts 13, Paul weaves together these Old Testament passages and prophecies, showing how the Old Testament predicted someone greater than David who would be resurrected and raised up and would be the future ruler of the Kingdom. This is how he ties this together. He talks about the Messiah as the Lord in Psalm 110:1, who is the begotten One who will be raised and is waiting to be given the Kingdom.
Psalm 2 focuses on the conflict between God’s anointed (Psalm 2:2) and the kings of the earth. Now he’s going to shift this to talk about the Davidic covenant in Acts 13:34. He’s established the Messiah as the begotten one, the eternal one, having eternal deity, and then in verse 34, he says,
Acts 13:34
Acts 13:34
Acts 13:34 “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay [corruption]..”
34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
That’s an important word because the idea of corruption there indicates the normal process of decay in the physical body after death as it returns to dust. So “he was raised from the dead no more to return to corruption.”
He quotes from Isaiah 55:3, in verse 34, and then he connects that to Psalm 16:10, in verse 35
Acts 13:35
Acts 13:35
35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
Let’s look at Psalm 16:10 for verse 35
Psalm 16:10
Psalm 16:10
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
and Isaiah for verse 34
Isaiah 55:3
Isaiah 55:3
3 Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you— The sure mercies of David.
These are some excellent verses to understand and see how they connect to comprehend the Messianic credentials of Jesus.
Isaiah 55 focuses on a message of judgment for unbelieving Israel, but that is also an opportunity for redemption and salvation. God constantly offers redemption and forgiveness to His people. As long as they’re alive, and as long as you’re alive, there’s always the opportunity for things to change. So, in Isaiah 55:1 it says,
Isaiah 55:1
Isaiah 55:1
1 “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.
[see, you have nothing to bring to God or to salvation. We cannot be good enough because we are inherently corrupt. Come buy and eat.
If we don’t have any money, how can we buy? Because it’s given freely. The food, the water, God is the one who freely supplies to us. “Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.” That’s what grace is. Grace does not assign a cost to salvation. It’s given as a free gift.
Does that mean it’s free? No, a purchase price had to be paid. That purchase price was the death of the Messiah. It was when the Messiah died that He paid that price, that penalty for sin. But because it was paid for by someone else, it is free to us. Isaiah goes on to say, “Why do you spend money for what is not bread?” In other words, why are you spending your effort? Why are you going out and performing good deeds and righteous deeds and all this ritual to get something that doesn’t provide nourishment for you? Because it’s false; it’s emptiness. It might make you feel good, but it might give you the trappings of life, but it doesn’t give you life. It’s not real bread. “Why do you spend money for what is not bread and your wages for what does not satisfy?
“Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance. Incline your ear and come to me. Listen, that you may live.”
Now that’s the invitation. Listen to God, and you will have life; your soul will live, and then he says that if you come to God and you turn back to him (Deuteronomy 30: 1-2 where Israel needs to turn back to God and turn from their idolatry
1 “Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you.
So Isaiah 55:3
3 Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you— The sure mercies of David.
“Then I will make an everlasting covenant with you (Hebrew word for covenant here), an unconditional, unending, permanent covenant] according to the faithful mercies shown to David.”
Now there’s an interesting facet to this in the Hebrew because he uses the word chesed to indicate it’s the faithfulness of God and the grace of God and this emphasizes the certainty of fulfilling the everlasting covenant that God made with David.
Let’s go over this part briefly — The Davidic covenant is covered in 2 Samuel 7:11-14, which emphasizes David’s immediate human descendant, Solomon, in this passage.
2 Samuel 7:11-14
2 Samuel 7:11-14
11 since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel, and have caused you to rest from all your enemies. Also the Lord tells you that He will make you a house. 12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.
Psalm 89
Psalm 89
Psalm 89 is a meditation upon the Davidic covenant and God’s faithfulness to David
1 Chronicles 17:10-14 gives us a different perspective on the same event when God gives the covenant to David.
1 Chronicles 17:10-14
1 Chronicles 17:10-14
10 since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. Also I will subdue all your enemies. Furthermore I tell you that the Lord will build you a house. 11 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. 14 And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”
It’s the same event as 2 Samuel 7 but it’s slightly different. The emphasis in 2 Samuel is on the human descent through Solomon. 1 Chronicles 17 emphasizes the one who will ultimately fulfill the covenant, the deity or divine side of the one who fulfills that covenant. We examine this covenant in these passages and see that there are two people involved in making it. There’s God on the one hand and David on the other hand. David stands as a representative of all of his descendants, and God is entering into this as a one-sided or unilateral covenant. God is binding Himself, just as He did with Abraham and just as He did with Israel in the land covenant. In the new covenant, the Davidic covenant, He’s binding Himself, not David. No conditions are being placed on David. The guarantee is all on God. It’s unilateral, and God is granting this to David.
This elaborates on the seed promise made to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant. There were three parts to that: land, seed, and blessing. The land related to the real estate for Israel, the seed related to the number of descendants of Israel, ultimately focused on the Messiah, and then the blessing is that they were to be a worldwide blessing. Now the sad part today is that this world-wide blessing aspect for Israel is often spoken up under the phrase meaning social justice. This has become sort of the prime directive, you might say, for all Jews. It’s nothing more than social activism and social justice, words that are basically code words for socialism and communism. It’s been twisted that way. The way to be a blessing to the world is to take from the rich and give to the poor, do good deeds, and things of that nature. So this blessing has been taken completely out of context in modern Judaism as a mandate for social justice. This answers the question some people say, “Why is that in the light of the fact we have a Muslim sympathizer in the White House, someone who is anti-Israel but is forced by the exigencies of his political situation to at least act pro-Israel. The answer is that they have sold their souls to social justice and socialism, and because of that, they can’t see reality. They want somebody who is going to make these social equities come into place from the top down rather than from the bottom up, and it has become another form of idolatry.
Zev Chafets is a humorous, amusing, light-hearted writer, known for writing the authorized biography of Rush Limbaugh, An Army of One. He’s great. His book, A Match Made in Heaven is designed to show why Israel needs the support of American evangelicals. It’s very insightful for evangelicals to read this book and for Jews, too. You find out a lot of things you didn’t know. One of the things I appreciated is the chapter called “Israelis are Republicans, Jews are Democrats.” Chafets says Israelis are Republicans because they live under a constant existential threat and are forced to face reality. It doesn’t mean they’re all conservatives. It doesn’t mean there aren’t liberals there. There are those who want to give all the territories of Samaria and Judah back to people who‘ve never had a right to it to begin with, because of their guilt. One of the points Chafets made is that Jews are so committed to social justice that forty percent of the Jewish population in America would rather vote for a president, even if they knew his election would lead to the destruction of the modern state of Israel as long as it preserved the right to abortion. They are saying it would be better to preserve that right on their idolatrous altar than to preserve the modern state of Israel. Many people are amazed by that. Still, you have to understand that the Jewish community is mostly agnostic or atheists, and they have no interest whatsoever in their Biblical heritage or an understanding of it as they’ve been influenced by this work’s righteousness idea.
So we’re back to the Davidic covenant. The Davidic covenant recognizes that man can’t do it. God is going to provide an eternal descendent that will do it. This is evident in the fact that there is a promise of an eternal house or dynasty for David, an eternal kingdom for David, and an eternal throne for David. And only someone who has an attitude of eternality can fulfill those aspects of the covenant. A normal human being can’t do it. So there’s a strong implication here that the one who fulfills this in the line of David here is not only going to be of the lineage of David but is also going to have to be divine and possess eternality as one of their attributes. The lowest common denominator here is the original of this verse,
“I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the sure mercies of David.”
So what is being said here is that when Israel, when the Jewish people have inclined their ear and come to God and turned away from the idolatry of socialism, turned away from the idolatry of atheism and agnosticism and materialism and all of the other isms, when they have turned back to God [Deuteronomy 30:1-3] then God will restore them to the land. This is a restoration passage and God says it will be at that time that “I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” It’s been made with David but this is when it’s activated.
End of 3/30/2025
End of 3/30/2025
Sunday, April 06, 2025
Sunday, April 06, 2025
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Now we have reviewed the Gospel message in the Abrahamic Covenant, and the Mosaic Covenant
And now we are seeing how Paul is revealing the Gospel through the Davidic Covenant.
Paul’s Gospel Message to Jews Revealed in the Davidic Covenant Acts 13:13-39
Paul’s Gospel Message to Jews Revealed in the Davidic Covenant Acts 13:13-39
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are working on the Old Testament Quotations that Paul has been using in his presentation to the synagogue of Antioch
Lets just read our passage, and then we will return to our study from verse 35.
Starting in Acts 13:32-37.
Acts 13:32-37
Acts 13:32-37
32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ 34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’ 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’ 36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.
Now we reviewed last week how the Gospel is related to the Davidic covenant, and we are still reviewing that.
Let’s re-read that covenant in its second form as expressed in 1 Chronicles 17. In 2 Samuel it is recorded dealing with the humanity of the seed of David, but here it captures the eternal promise through that Messianic seed to come.
1 Chronicles 17:10-14
1 Chronicles 17:10-14
10 since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. Also I will subdue all your enemies. Furthermore I tell you that the Lord will build you a house. 11 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. 14 And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.” ’ ”
The lowest common denominator here is the original of this verse, as recorded by Isaiah.
Isaiah 55:3
Isaiah 55:3
3 Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you— The sure mercies of David.
So what is being said here is that when Israel, when the Jewish people have inclined their ear and come to God and turned away from the idolatry of socialism, turned away from the idolatry of atheism and agnosticism and materialism and all of the other isms, when they have turned back to God [Deuteronomy 30:1-3] then God will restore them to the land.
This is a restoration passage in Isaiah, and God says it will be at that time that “I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” It’s been made with David but this is when it’s activated.
Deuteronomy 30:1-3 is the first passage that deals with the requirement for Israel to SHUB to the Lord
Deuteronomy 30:1-3
Deuteronomy 30:1-3
1 “Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you.
Then we have other passages that relate to this, such as Jeremiah 23:5-6, which refer to Jesse, David’s father. They refer to the ‘stump of Jesse,” which is the house of David that has been shot down, and all that is left is a stump. Out of the stump comes a branch, and that branch is used to represent the Messiah.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 talks about this,
Jeremiah 23:5-6
Jeremiah 23:5-6
5 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Watch that word “righteous”. This is a significant thing. In Judaism, there’s an emphasis on righteousness tsaddiyq and we have to understand how the Bible presents righteousness.
Righteousness is a concept that needs to be traced throughout the Old Testament. God is going to raise from David a righteous branch. The focus attribute of the branch who is a descendant of David is this perfect righteousness. He is a king who will reign and prosper, and He is a king who will execute “judgment and righteousness.” Grammatically, these are seen as two sides of the same coin, and only because He is righteous will His judgment or His rule be righteous.
So, His rule will be characterized by righteousness. In verse 6,
Jeremiah 23:6
Jeremiah 23:6
6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
That hasn’t happened. At the time of Jeremiah in the 590s, the northern kingdom of Israel doesn’t dwell safely. It doesn’t dwell at all. It was destroyed 130 years earlier by the Assyrians, so there was no northern kingdom of Israel at the time Jeremiah wrote this. Judah, at this time, is under the heel of the Babylonians. They were already militarily defeated in 605, and they were defeated again in 595. The first temple was going to be destroyed, and they would be entirely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar.
This is a prediction that, although everything is falling apart right now, the economy is collapsing, militarily, they’re being defeated, and everything is in a state of chaos, there is still a future hope. The future hope is in this future branch of righteousness. In his day, Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely. So, once again, if Judah is to be saved and Israel is to dwell safely, there must be a restoration to the land. That hasn’t happened yet. It’s happening now; the restoration has been ongoing for the last hundred years, but it’s just the beginning of this restoration. There are now more Jews living in Israel than living outside for the first time since 586. You have more Jews living in Israel than outside the land. At the time of the first century, you just had a small percentage living in the land. You still had significant Jewish populations in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Turkey, as well as throughout Asia Minor and Babylon. It wasn’t just Judea.
The name by which the Messiah will be known, the branch, the Lord, our righteousness. Again, it is the righteousness of this descendent of David whose righteousness becomes our righteousness.
Now, we’re going to go ten chapters later in Jeremiah. We will hit a few points from Jeremiah 33:14 through Jeremiah 33:22. You might want to make notes in your bible margins here. Make a note at Jeremiah 23: 5-6: “look at Jeremiah 33 and following.”
In Jeremiah 33:14 we have another prediction about the branch,
Jeremiah 33:14
Jeremiah 33:14
14 ‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah:
“Behold days are coming, declares the Lord..”
This is written just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586, so it is in the future.
14 ‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah:
“…the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
So it’s the fulfillment of all these prophecies and promises that God had made to the fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to others down through the centuries. He says,
Jeremiah 33:15-17
Jeremiah 33:15-17
15 ‘In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David A Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, And Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS’ 17 “For thus says the Lord: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;
So there will be a restoration of the Davidic monarchy.
Jeremiah 33:18
Jeremiah 33:18
18 nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.’ ”
Again, there is an indication that a restoration of the temple will occur for sacrifices, and a corresponding restoration of the priesthood will be necessary for these sacrifices.
These are not sacrifices related to salvation. Those were fulfilled at the cross, and they’re not repeated. These are sacrifices related to praise, sacrifices related to thanksgiving, and sacrifices related to ritual cleansing, which will be necessary for entering the Millennial temple. Verse 19,
Jeremiah 33:19-21
Jeremiah 33:19-21
19 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “Thus says the Lord: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers.
In other words, he’s saying, if you can get night and day to stop, then this covenant is broken, but you can’t get night and day to stop, so this covenant will never be broken. It is permanent, everlasting covenant.
Verse 22,
Jeremiah 33:22
Jeremiah 33:22
22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’ ”
I’ll just stop there. This emphasizes the fact that a branch from the descendants of David will rule.
Now, let’s skip over to Ezekiel. Ezekiel is writing in Babylon roughly at the same time as Jeremiah. Ezekiel was taken captive in the second group of deportees in the 590’s and taken to Babylon. He is ministering to the Jews in Babylon.
We covered this passage when we were doing Ezekiel 38 study.
In Ezekiel 37: 24 and following he says,
Ezekiel 37:24-26
Ezekiel 37:24-26
24 “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore.
It’s everlasting. The covenant of peace is another term for the new covenant. The new covenant is tied to the fulfillment of the covenant with David.
We have two covenants, the fulfillment of which will occur only when the Messiah comes and establishes His kingdom in the future.
In Ezekiel 21:27 there is a lament of the fallen Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 21:27
Ezekiel 21:27
27 Overthrown, overthrown, I will make it overthrown! It shall be no longer, Until He comes whose right it is, And I will give it to Him.” ’
This refers to the Messiah. Ezekiel 34:23 says,
Ezekiel 34:23
Ezekiel 34:23
23 I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd.
Now, when it comes to the language here, some believe this refers to the Messiah as the descendant of David and is simply referring to him as David. There’s another view that David, in his resurrection with the Old Testament saints, will be given the rulership over Israel in the Millennial kingdom while Messiah rules over the whole earth. I think that is the more accurate view, that Jesus as the Messiah rules over the whole earth, and David reigns over Israel and Jerusalem.
We go from there to Hosea 3: 4-5,
Hosea 3:4-5
Hosea 3:4-5
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.
This refers to the present time when they are under divine discipline. Verse 5,
Hosea 3:5 “Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king..”
So there’s an initial return in apostasy when they return in unbelief. Then there will be the time known as the time of Daniel’s seventieth week, sometimes known as the tribulation, or the time of Jacob’s wrath, and this ends when the Messiah comes back and rescues Israel from being destroyed by the Antichrist so that is when they turn to God, just before the end of that period, before destruction.
Hosea 3:5 “And they will come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the last days.”
Another passage, Jeremiah 30: 8-9,
Jeremiah 30:8-9
Jeremiah 30:8-9
8 ‘For it shall come to pass in that day,’ Says the Lord of hosts, ‘That I will break his yoke from your neck, And will burst your bonds; Foreigners shall no more enslave them. 9 But they shall serve the Lord their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them.
Another passage, Psalm 132:12 and 17,
Psalm 132:12 & 17
Psalm 132:12 & 17
12 If your sons will keep My covenant And My testimony which I shall teach them, Their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore.”
[referring to the Davidic covenant]
17 There I will make the horn of David grow; I will prepare a lamp for My Anointed.
Mashiach in Hebrew is the word for anointed, which is CHRISTOS [xristoj] in Greek. Then Psalm 89, which is a long psalm, also references his seed.
Psalm 89:36-37
Psalm 89:36-37
36 His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; 37 It shall be established forever like the moon, Even like the faithful witness in the sky.” Selah
That takes us through David and the fact that the sure mercies of David will be visited upon Israel.
Acts 13:34
Acts 13:34
34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
Now, what’s interesting in the Greek is that you have a word that’s used in reference to the sure mercies; it’s really the holy mercies, it’s HOSIOS [ὅσιος], like HAGIOS [a(gioj] which is the word normally translated holy but it has the same idea. It’s more of a personal holiness.
It’s hosios [o(sioj] and this is used by Paul to segue into the next psalm he’s going to quote, Psalm 16:10,
Psalm 16:10
Psalm 16:10
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
It says in the Septuagint, “You will not allow your hosios one.” This raises the issue of Psalm 16:10, which we’ve briefly examined before.
It’s a fascinating study on 16:10 because it says, “For you will not leave my soul in Sheol.”
This is David talking. David says, “You’re not going to abandon me.” That is what the word leave means. It’s a very strong word, and it means you’re not going to desert me or abandon my soul in Sheol. Now David has the confidence that God will not abandon him in Sheol. But the language here is hyperbolic. It’s extreme. It’s an exaggeration. While it is true about David, he’s not going to be abandoned, the hyperbolic language is only fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. There is an immediate sense of application to David, but the real application that Paul is able to make, due to a divinely inspired insight, is that he applies this to Jesus, who will not undergo bodily corruption.
The Hebrew word for corruption is the word translated ‘pit’. It means decay, so using the word’ pit’ involves everything that occurs in physical decay and corruption. So, Paul, under the inspiration of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, applies this to the resurrection of Christ. This is what he shows in verse 36 and the following,
Acts 13:36
Acts 13:36
36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;
He was buried in the grave and his body deteriorated and decayed into dust. But that’s not so for Jesus.
But Christ did not.
Resurrection Confirmation. Acts 13:13-39
Resurrection Confirmation. Acts 13:13-39
We are continuing to work our way through Paul’s presentation of the gospel to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch. If we put ourselves in their place, they were hearing this for the first time. They had probably not heard anything about Jesus or the claims made by Jesus to be the Messiah, and they invited the apostle Paul because they treated him as a visiting rabbi to give them a report from Jerusalem and to bring a teaching from the Word to the congregation. And in that he provides a review of God’s plan for Israel. He explores the Abrahamic covenant, touches on the Davidic covenant, and brings these together in terms of God’s promise to David to have a descendant on the throne forever.
Acts 13:32
Acts 13:32
32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers.
Starting in verse 32, he focuses on the gospel. This is really important. There have been several issues related to the gospel. On the one hand, there has been a challenge to free grace. One spectrum of evangelicalism’s presentation of the gospel has been labeled as “lordship salvation.” Lordship salvation, in a nutshell, does not necessarily say you have to make Jesus Lord of your life. That is one manifestation of it. The real core of Lordship salvation is the idea that if you are truly regenerate then you are going to produce fruit that is consistent with regeneration and you will live a certain way. That has come to be called fruit inspection. It is that you can somehow quantify this fruit so that you can look at your lifestyle, life change, or absence of sin as the validation of your belief that you are saved.
On the other hand, there is the position that has come to be called free grace, which for some people is a redundancy, but that is because many people use the term “grace” in a manner that is not free. For example, people firmly believe in the concept of lordship; Roman Catholics firmly believe in the concept of grace; many others firmly believe in the idea of grace. But as one lady once said: “You are earning a lot of grace.” You can’t earn grace; grace is something that, by definition, is freely given. We have consistently had this distinction among Christians from time immemorial; it is not just a modern manifestation.
However, the modern manifestation has been crystallized and clarified in terms of particular debates. In the history of this, in the late 70s and early 80s, it became explicitly crystallized by the rise of Zane Hodges, who took a specific confrontational approach in several very good books, analyzing the scriptural interpretations of the lordship crowd, specifically John MacArthur but also numerous others, most of whom were in the Calvinistic camp.
It has been a misnomer and a mischaracterization by many people in the grace camp to try to say all Calvinism is Lordship. There have been numerous movements within four and five-point Calvinism since the sixteenth century that have not held to the lordship approach to the fifth point of Calvinism, the P in TULIP—the perseverance of the saints, the view the saint who is truly regenerate will persevere in being faithful or enduring in his faith in Christ; he is not going to give it up, not going to finally reject Christ, not going to commit certain sins continuously, but if he is “genuinely” saved regeneration somehow limits his sin nature. There is no real support for this in Scripture; it is essentially a theological deduction from their definition of regeneration.
However, there are many other Calvinists—such as Lewis Sperry Chafer—who believe that the P in perseverance refers to Christ persevering in keeping us saved, which is how many of us understand eternal security. That view was a dominant view among many Calvinists. It is just in the last 40 or 50 years that among Calvinists that the perseverance/lordship crowd has become the dominant thinking within Calvinism.
End of 1st Service 4/6/2025
End of 1st Service 4/6/2025
Now we were speaking of Calvinism and the beginning of what is called the Free Grace movement kicked off by Zane Hodges as a resistance to the false teaching of Calvinism, the back loading of Perseverance, which is actually an introduction of obedience as part of their definition of Faith. You see, our neo-Calvinist (a term that means the rebaking of the cake of Calvinism, but they are using different ingredients) so, neo-Calvinist friends have asserted that Faith actually means obedience, not belief. This is an example of what we call Theological Imposition where you place a foreign theological concept on a word to change its meaning.
On the other hand, we have the Free Grace movement, and unfortunately, within this movement, there has been another split, another conflict over the gospel. It has to do with the understanding that Zane Hodges himself had of the gospel, which was not always clear to people who read him because it is easy to read into someone’s statement of the gospel that is fairly close to being on target, a correct understanding of the gospel when the issue that is being addressed on the page of the commentary or whatever is focusing on analyzing and understanding a distortion related to lordship salvation.
However, it became apparent about years ago that Zane had always held a rather unusual view of the gospel: that the gospel was simply the offer of eternal life by Jesus. He cites a couple of passages in John as his support, and, of course, these statements were made before Jesus went to the cross. Therefore, they would not be passages that focused on the cross, but rather passages that focused on Jesus’ offer of eternal life to Jews in a dispensation that preceded His final payment on the cross. So, as far as Zane was concerned, the gospel was an understanding that Jesus could accomplish what He promised to accomplish, which was to give eternal life, and that you were believing Him for eternal life, and that because what Jesus was giving was eternal life that meant—embedded within the definition of eternal—that it was not a life that could be lost or taken away.
Where that went was that if you didn’t have an understanding that the life you were getting when you believed in Jesus was something you couldn’t lose, then you didn’t believe Jesus for eternal life; you believed Him for a life that you could lose. So, if you didn’t have an understanding of eternal security in some sense at the moment of trusting in Christ, then you weren’t really saved.
Notice I haven’t mentioned anything about the cross, anything about the fact that Christ died for our sins, or believing that Christ died to provide forgiveness for your sins, or justification. For that reason, that view of the gospel, which came to dominate the Grace Evangelical Society and others, came to be called “the crossless gospel” because you didn’t have to believe that Jesus died on the cross. That is not part of what Jesus offered in John 5. He offered eternal life. He hasn’t offered the cross yet because He hasn’t gone to the cross yet; it was before the cross.
The reason for bringing this out is that we will see how Paul interacts with these Jewish unbelievers in the chapter of Acts 13. There are five key prophecies from the Old Testament that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Paul is looking at a couple of them here.
Acts 13:33
Acts 13:33
33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
We’ve looked at Acts 13:33, the quotation there from Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7—“From the womb of the dawn I have begotten you.”
7 “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Psalm 110 is clearly a messianic psalm related to the elevation of the Messiah to the right hand of God the Father.
Psalm 110:1
Psalm 110:1
1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
The point is that the Messiah ascends and sits at the right hand of the throne of God in a position of passive waiting for the kingdom to be given, which is given by God the Father, the Ancient of Days, as stated in Daniel chapter seven, just prior to the Son of Man coming to the earth to defeat the kings of the earth and then establishing His kingdom. Psalm 2 focuses on the battle that takes place, and Psalm 2:7 is the announcement, the validation by God of His previous declaration that the Messiah is the Son of God, possessing full deity.
32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
Then Paul goes to another verse. Notice what he is doing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He is stringing together two or three different prophecies to show how they are fulfilled in Jesus with reference to the promise, the covenant given to David.
This is a quote from Isaiah 55:3 NASB
Acts 13:34-35
Acts 13:34-35
34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’ 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
This is a promise fulfilling the Davidic covenant. God promised David an eternal house, an eternal kingdom, and an eternal throne.
Isaiah 55:3
Isaiah 55:3
3 Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you— The sure mercies of David.
That promise to David was a promise of an eternal house, an eternal kingdom, and an eternal throne. David was from the root of his father, Jesse. Isaiah 11:1, 10 makes it clear that there will come forth in the future—Isaiah was written about 720 BC. He is in the southern kingdom, the northern kingdom has fallen, and he is warning prophetically that the southern kingdom, the kingdom of Judah, which was still ruled by a king who was a descendant of David, would be destroyed by Babylon (and Babylon wasn’t even dreamed of at this point as a mighty kingdom). That would, in effect, cut down the tree of David so that all that would be left is a stump. So what would happen then if the Davidic tree is cut down? Would God remain faithful and fulfill His promise to Israel—from the stem of Jesse, a little green shoot? A branch will grow out of its/his roots.
Isaiah 11:10
Isaiah 11:10
10 “And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious.”
Typically, when we encounter the phrase “in that day” in the prophets of the Old Testament, it refers to future events, such as the day of the Lord or the end-time. This is an important messianic prophecy, and what we learn from the verse is that a descendant of David will attract Gentiles to himself when he comes to establish his kingdom for Israel.
There will be specific characteristics associated with this. We need to pay attention to the word “righteousness” here. It is essential to note that righteousness is a critical issue in the Old Testament. Job said, “How can a man be righteous before God.” The word “righteousness” in both the New and Old Testaments really has two connotations. One connotation is experiential righteousness, i.e., doing good things and living a just life following the standards outlined in God’s Word. But even though human beings do good things, we are all flawed. This is a problem that is repeatedly stated in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament. So, while man can accomplish certain good things—and there’s nothing wrong with doing good to our fellow creatures—it is wrong to think that doing that good curries favor with God and to think that that becomes the basis for our salvation. That is the problem.
Jeremiah 23 gives us a promise related to David as the Branch.
Jeremiah 23:5
Jeremiah 23:5
5 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
The Branch of righteousness is distinct from David. He is raising to David as a result of those promises God made to David in an eternal covenant, someone who is described metaphorically in this passage as a branch. He is a righteous Branch. That righteousness is going to be an inherent, intrinsic character quality of this individual. He is then described as a king. Royalty is ascribed to Him, which makes sense as He is a descendant of David. He is one who fulfills the promise of an eternal throne, an eternal dynasty. Because He is inherently righteous, His rule will be righteous.
It will be the only time in history that we have a truly righteous ruler in any kingdom. There are no righteous rulers today; all rulers today are unrighteous to one degree or another. But if we don’t have an understanding of man being inherently flawed—or as Christians describe it, as sinners—because of sin, then we constantly think that human beings can bring in a perfect environment. That thinking is called utopianism. It has never worked and will never work because human beings are flawed, and as long as they are flawed, they will always fail when they govern.
They are susceptible to power lust and the abuses of power. The founding fathers understood this, and it is why, in the Constitution, they established three branches of government as checks and balances against one another, so that no one branch would rise above the other two. They didn’t design it so that passing laws and changing laws would be easy. However, today we live in a world where people often become frustrated. They operate on the false assumption that people are basically good and that those who govern are also basically good, with our best interests at heart. They don’t! They want to accumulate power and take it away from the people.
Jeremiah 23:6
Jeremiah 23:6
6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Jeremiah writes at a time when Nebuchadnezzar has already invaded once, and he is writing prior to the final destruction of Judah in 586 BC. He has already announced that they are going to lose and that the Babylonians will destroy them. Now he is saying that all hope is not lost, there will yet be a future, and God is going to be true to His promises. He is saying that in the days of the Branch, the righteous Branch, Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely. There will be the restoration of the nation in safety, and when the righteous Brach rules, He will be called ‘The LORD our righteousness’.
In Hebrew, this could be translated a couple of different ways because there is no verb there. It could be read as it is literally: Yahweh tsidqenu, which means Yahweh our righteousness. But it could be as how the 1986, more up-to-date translation of the Tanakh translates it: The Lord is our vindicator. They have inserted the “is” there, which is viable, but this form of the word tsedeq does not mean vindication. It is not translated as that, it is the same form as in Jeremiah 23:5—
Jeremiah 23:5
Jeremiah 23:5
5 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
But it is the same form of the word. You can’t say that, you have to be consistent in translation. The reason the 1986 Tanakh changes that is to get away from the implications of righteousness.
As we examine these Old Testament passages, the question is whose righteousness leads us to heaven. We see that the Old Testament makes it clear that the righteousness that leads Jews in the Old Testament and anyone in the world, including those in the New Testament, to eternity is the righteousness of the Messiah.
The 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tenakh stated it very clearly, “the Lord our righteousness,” and that translation is consistent historically with the various Targums or commentaries that had been written in Jewish history on Jeremiah chapters 23 and 33. It is only in modern times that it has been shifted to avoid the messianic Christian interpretation.
Jeremiah 33:14-17
Jeremiah 33:14-17
14 ‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah:
And then he begins to discuss David, so the promise he is referring to here takes us back to the Davidic covenant. It is crucial that when we help people understand the Bible, we ground our teachings in the promises and covenants that God made to Abraham, David, and the Jewish people, regarding their eternal possession of the land.
15 ‘In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David A Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, And Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS’ 17 “For thus says the Lord: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;
Zechariah 3:8
Zechariah 3:8
8 ‘Hear, O Joshua, the high priest, You and your companions who sit before you, For they are a wondrous sign; For behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH.
So we’ve moved from the pre-exilic announcement that God is going to raise up a Branch from the root of Jesse to now calling the Messiah the Branch. He is “My servant the Branch.”
Zechariah 6:12
Zechariah 6:12
12 Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying: “Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord;
This is speaking of the future temple of the Lord built during the messianic age.
Jeremiah 33:18-22 continues to talk about God’s fulfillment of the covenant to David. Verse 20
Jeremiah 33:20
Jeremiah 33:20
20 “Thus says the LordM: ‘If you can break y covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season,
Ezekiel 21:27 is Ezekiel’s cry of woe at the defeat and destruction of Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 21:27
Ezekiel 21:27
27 Overthrown, overthrown, I will make it overthrown! It shall be no longer, Until He comes whose right it is, And I will give it to Him.” ’
That is a reference to the Davidic king, the Branch who will rule in Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 34:23
Ezekiel 34:23
23 I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd.
Hosea 3:4
Hosea 3:4
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.
Jeremiah 30:8
Jeremiah 30:8
8 ‘For it shall come to pass in that day,’ Says the Lord of hosts, ‘That I will break his yoke from your neck, And will burst your bonds; Foreigners shall no more enslave them.
See also Psalm 132:12, Psalm 132:17;
Psalm 89:29, Psalm 89:36-37.
Psalm 132:12
Psalm 132:12
12 If your sons will keep My covenant And My testimony which I shall teach them, Their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore.”
Psalm 132:17
Psalm 132:17
17 There I will make the horn of David grow; I will prepare a lamp for My Anointed.
Psalm 89:29
Psalm 89:29
29 His seed also I will make to endure forever, And his throne as the days of heaven.
Psalm 89:36-37
Psalm 89:36-37
36 His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; 37 It shall be established forever like the moon, Even like the faithful witness in the sky.” Selah
Acts 13:35 brings in a third passage. He has brought in Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 55:3, now he brings in Psalm 16:10.
Psalm 16:10
Psalm 16:10
Psalm 16:10 “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Here David is speaking about himself because he is convinced that he is going through problems and that he will die, but there will be a resurrection for him. However, God, the Holy Spirit, through inspiration from Paul, is revealing another application. He can do that because the Spirit inspires it. If we were to read Psalm 16:10, we would not derive the doctrine of resurrection from it in the sense that it applies to Jesus. That comes under the divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit, as given by the apostle Paul. David is convinced that there will be a resurrection for himself and that he will remain in the grave, but one day, someday, there will be a resurrection for him, and that is what he is referring to.
Paul, under the inspiration of Scripture, takes this and applies it to the resurrection of Jesus, that His body saw no corruption, no decay, no deterioration in the grace whatsoever because He was raised from the dead almost instantly after His death—three days later but considering the time frames it wasn’t hundreds or thousands of years—and given a new resurrection body. Peter also stated this on the day of Pentecost. Notice it is “Holy One,” singular, not a plural.
Paul states in Acts 13:36
Acts 13:36-37
Acts 13:36-37
36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.
He is not contradicting David’s belief in a future resurrection. David did indeed see corruption, but Jesus Christ did not. Paul is making a connection here. He has spoken about the Davidic king who will come and sit at the right hand of God the Father, who will then defeat the enemies of God (Psalm 2).
When that happens, the “sure mercies of David” will be given to them in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. This is seen, vindicated, and validated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as prophesied in Psalm 16:10.
Psalm 16:10
Psalm 16:10
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
He does this in these verses to establish that Jesus can do what He claimed to do, having achieved victory over physical death.
From that, Paul is going to draw a conclusion.
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 13:38-39
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
What he is saying is that there are some things you could be justified in the Law of Moses. You couldn’t be justified by anything from the Law of Moses, but in Jesus, you will be justified. In verse 38 he said: “through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.” This is the verb katangello [καταγγέλλεται] – angello in the Greek is the word to announce something; it is intensified with the prefix. It means to proclaim or preach something. It refers to preaching the gospel, as we see in 1 Corinthians 9:14
1 Corinthians 9:14
1 Corinthians 9:14
14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.
What is the proclamation of the gospel? We’ve had this problem historically with understanding the gospel. Does the gospel mean to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and if you truly believe, if you genuinely believe, if you rightly believe, then you will see an inevitable change in your life, and by that, you will know you have believed? Most people are smart enough to know if they have believed something. It is simple; it is not hard, but people will get all wrapped around the axle and say: “I’m not sure.” Well, do you believe it? Yeah. Well, then, you know it; that’s it. Notice that “believe” is the only condition that is stated in verse 38. They preached forgiveness of sins. Notice it doesn’t say they preached eternal life.
Does Paul have a different gospel than the Apostle John? No, the gospel manifests itself; there are different facets. One facet relates to eternal life, another facet relates to regeneration, becoming a new creature in Christ, another relates to redemption, and another to forgiveness. They are different facets of the gospel, but proclaiming any one of those facets is proclaiming the gospel. If you believe in Jesus for forgiveness of sins, you don’t have to believe it again for eternal life, and you don’t have to believe again for redemption, for propitiation, for reconciliation; they are all different aspects of the same gospel. But Zane Hodges comes along and says you have to believe in Jesus for eternal life, but if you believe in Jesus for anything else, you are not saved. That is as phony a gospel as John MacArthur’s gospel. This is what led to a significant division within the Free Grace movement in the early 2000s and the formation of the Free Grace Alliance in 2004.
End of 2nd Service 4/6/2025
End of 2nd Service 4/6/2025
Sunday, April 13, 2025
Sunday, April 13, 2025
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Resurrection Confirmation. Acts 13:13-39
Resurrection Confirmation. Acts 13:13-39
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 13:38-39
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
The gospel is clearly stated here as related to the forgiveness of sins. The word for forgiveness is aphesis [ἄφεσις].
It means a release or a pardon, the cancellation of a debt, that that debt was wiped out. When Christ died on the cross, the debt was paid, so the issue now isn’t whether you want to pay the debt or not; the issue now is do you want to accept the payment of the debt or not, and when you accept it you get Christ’s righteousness.
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Notice it is not saying everyone who believes and continues to believe; not everyone who believes and bears fruit; not everyone who believes and abides; not everyone who believes and attends church, is baptized, or engages in any other practice, but what is required is simply faith alone.
Faith is belief.
Everyone who believes is justified. It is a present tense for continuous action if you believe you are justified,
and justified is the Greek word DIKAIOUTAI [δικαιοῦται], which is a legal term meaning to declare righteous before God. And you couldn’t be justified from all things by the Law of Moses. That is the sense of the verse.
The question is Job 9:2
Job 9:2
Job 9:2
2 “Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God?
If we want to focus the gospel it is related to all of these things, but this is the core issue. It is the Hebrew word Tzedek, which refers not only to experiential righteousness, used to describe the positive application of believers, but also to the forensic or legal declaration of someone brought before a judge—the declaration of their righteousness, indicating that they have met the standard of righteousness. They may not be righteous, but they are declared righteous.
The answer to Job’s question doesn’t have to do with doing righteous deeds. Why? Because at the very core of our being, we are viewed as so flawed that while we can do relative righteousness things that when compared to other people, are good, but in terms of the absolute righteousness of God, they are not.
Isaiah 64:6, quoting from the 1918 translation of the Jewish Publication Society’s translation of the Tenakh:
6 But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.
When it says, “we are all:” who is left out?
That includes every single human being.
6 But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.
In other words, it is stained, and we cannot gain favor with God no matter how good our deeds are. That is what Isaiah says.
God is described as absolute righteousness. In Psalm 9, we are told that He will judge the world by righteousness. That is His absolute standard. So if our righteousness is as filthy rags and He is going to judge us based on our righteousness, we are not in a good place.
Psalm 9:8
Psalm 9:8
8 He shall judge the world in righteousness, And He shall administer judgment for the peoples in uprightness.
Psalm 11:7
Psalm 11:7
7 For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright.
He can only approve that which is righteous. So if our righteousness is as filthy rages, how can God ever approve us?
The answer is given in Genesis 15:6 .
Genesis 15:6
Genesis 15:6
6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
Righteousness comes by faith, not by works. It was because Abraham trusted God, not what Abraham did, that he was given righteousness.
In Isaiah 53, one of the most significant messianic passages, we are told how God deals with the unrighteousness of man and how He is going to justify the sinners, the unrighteous, that are mentioned in Isaiah 64:6.
Isaiah 64:6
Isaiah 64:6
6 But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.
Isaiah 53:4
Isaiah 53:4
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
It is the core corruption that is sin. It is substitutionary; He bore our sins; He took our suffering upon Himself. The idea that runs through this is that there is this one individual, the servant, who takes upon Himself our problems. He solves the problem. That is substitutionary.
This is the same picture as on the day of Atonement when the lamb is brought out when the goats are brought out, where the high priest places his hand on the goats and recites the sins of the nation. They are transferred to the goat, and that is the picture: the goat is going to be sacrificed, while the other one is sent out into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the people. But the blood of the bulls and goats couldn’t permanently take away sin. But this is the servant of God who is going to take away sin permanently. It is God bringing the judgment upon the servant.
Isaiah 53:5
Isaiah 53:5
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
What the servant would go through was not because of what He did but because of our sin. Notice that this verse has shifted from discussing the disease metaphor to addressing sin and iniquity, as that is the actual problem. The crushing here is something that would produce death. He takes your place in terms of punishment—in substitution.
Isaiah 53:11
Isaiah 53:11
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
He is looking upon the spiritual transaction, the substitutionary payment on the cross. He will be satisfied—propitiation, the essence of what is depicted on the day of Atonement: God’s justice being satisfied by the blood being put on the mercy seat over the broken Ten Commandments.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
The Servant is righteous, but the people aren’t. The Servant’s righteousness is true righteousness, and by His righteousness, many shall be justified. Why? Because He shall bear their iniquities.
So, how do we get the righteousness of God, as Job asked? It has to be given to us, and it is given to us by the One who paid the penalty for our sins. The New Testament tells us how this is fulfilled in Jesus. This is what Paul says in Acts 13:38-39:
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 13:38-39
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Isaiah predicts this for us - speaking about the coming Messiah: here the Lord is speaking to the Messiah:
Isaiah 42:6
Isaiah 42:6
6 “I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,
That is what is getting ready to happen in Acts 13 because some of the Jews are going to respond but most of them are going to reject. So Paul is going to turn from the Jews because they have willingly rejected the offer of eternal life and the offer of forgiveness, the offer of justification, and he is going to turn to the Gentiles because the gospel is to be a light to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 49:6
Isaiah 49:6
6 Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
That gives us an understanding of how the gospel is presented in the Old Testament, where all the prophecies are woven together, and we must know this to be effective witnesses.
Volition and Sovereignty. Acts 13:40-52
Volition and Sovereignty. Acts 13:40-52
If we you to understand the issues related to Calvinism and Arminianism, and if you are studying those issues and are dealing with somebody who holds to a strong Calvinistic view of salvation and the doctrines of salvation, then two of the passages that they will go to in order to substantiate their view on unconditional election and predestination are found in Acts 13:48 and Romans 8:28-30.
Acts 13:48
Acts 13:48
48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Romans 8:28-30
Romans 8:28-30
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
There are other verses, but those are two of the central verses that are brought into the debate in an attempt to understand the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the volition of human beings. So it is always important to study these types of ideas in context because so much of the time in theology, you get people making bullet points. They will give the Scripture references and actually cite their Scriptures, but they are just citing the verse, or maybe two verses, and you don’t get the context and the flow of argument surrounding that verse. Often, by taking a verse out of context, it sounds like it is saying one thing, and in reality, it isn’t saying that at all.
I was just dealing with a person who was asking me about fears over committing the unpardonable sin. This is based on taking a verse out of context. Even after explaining the context of Matthew 12 and 13, they were having a hard time. It is the abandonment of
We have been focusing on the principles seen in Acts 13 where Paul is explaining the gospel. This is the first in-depth presentation of the gospel that we see from the apostle Paul to a Jewish audience. He follows the principle he states later on in the first chapter of Romans, taking the gospel to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles. He believed that that was his mandate from God even though he is the apostle to the Gentiles. There was still this mandate to take the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews and to give them the opportunity of first refusal, which happened almost every time. Then, there is a free, open, and clear door to take the gospel to the Gentiles who were receiving the gospel with open arms and enthusiasm.
The last few lessons have been to help us to understand how Paul is structuring his presentation of the gospel. It is important to have a very good grasp of the Old Testament presentation of the gospel. Any of us ought to be prepared to walk somebody through a gospel presentation without going to the New Testament, except maybe at the end, just to lay that groundwork. But that would only be with certain kinds of an audience. With other kinds of audiences, you do other things; everybody is different. You don’t just have one or two canned approaches; you need to know the Word so that the Holy Spirit can use it.
We have been dealing with the basic presentation of the gospel in Acts 13:38, 39.
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 13:38-39
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
It has been pointed out that the focal point here in his explanation of the gospel of salvation is the good news of the forgiveness of sins. There are different ways to express the message of the gospel. One way is to talk about it in terms of forgiveness of sins. That is very important for some people, depending on their background and history. For other people, the issue may be reconciliation; for others, an understanding of justification; for others, it might be an understanding of the gift of eternal life. The focal point is always on Christ's work on the cross that provides these. These are just different facets of what was accomplished on the cross.
A major debate that has occurred is one that is between a group that we will call fatalists or determinists, for lack of a better term. These are those who emphasize the sovereign authority of God, that God oversees and controls history to the degree that human beings really don’t have ultimate freedom in the areas of the will. They have freedom at the lower level; they can decide whether to put on a pair of cowboy boots or something like that, but when it comes to significant patterns in life, especially salvation, man does not have free will; he does not have responsible choice. He cannot make those kinds of choices, they are predetermined by the sovereign control of God.
On the other side, there is a group that has so rejected God's sovereignty that they emphasize human freedom to the point that man basically determines God’s will. Everything is determined by God. Ultimately, somebody has to determine everything; it is either God or the creature. So, the way it is set up is to polarize these two positions, where there is either a totally sovereign God or a totally free creature.
In recent years, there has been an even weirder heretical view on the side of freedom. This came out in the nineties and became known as open theism. Open theism held to the basic view that if God is going to know that something will certainly happen in the future then you have two options. Either He totally controls everything to bring that about—which means there is no freedom—or He is really just making an educated guess. He is not omniscient He is just open to the future. But God can’t know with certainty what will happen in the future without being able to control what will happen in the future. In reading the literature on this we find that a vast number of the books that are written are written not from a biblical perspective, even though theologians are writing them. There is a tremendous amount of discussion and argumentation that is based on pure philosophical constructs.
But we just want to deal with what the Scripture says. And want is frustrating for a certain number of people is that on the one side, the determinist side represented historically by two great figures, the bishop of Hippo, Augustine, and John Calvin, and on the other side Pelagianism. Pelagius was a British monk who believed that everybody had the same freedom that Adam had and that everybody was born with the same neutrality as Adam. So there was the initial debate between Augustine and Pelagius, and then later on between Calvinists and a group of former Calvinists out of Holland who were known as Arminians because they were following a theologian professor named Jacobus Arminius. That is the historical context and people think that everything can be divided into two ways.
Calvinists and Augustinians tend to emphasize the grandeur, greatness and authority of God. They will try to pin their opponent and say, who is in charge, God or man? They are creating a false dichotomy. They have created a God who is less powerful because it is either His control or man’s control, He doesn’t have the power and authority to oversee creation and maintain His control over the flow of history, working in and through human volition behind the scenes without controlling it. That is a larger, greater God than a God who controls the volition of everybody. Because He is so much greater than all of the circumstances and people He is able to sort of guide and direct the whole process without sacrificing the individual responsibility of the creatures.
The whole concept of freedom is another bag because Adam had one level of freedom, but his descendants don’t have that same level of freedom. We all know that we were born slaves of the sin nature, Paul explains in Romans chapter six. So this idea that we are free is really a kind of misnomer. It is like the term “fair” which has so many ambiguities to it that one person’s fairness is another person’s inequality, and another person’s socialism is another person’s communism. Freedom gets the same way, so we have to be careful about some of these terms. One of the things we need to emphasize and come back to is what the Bible emphasizes: personal responsibility, personal ability to make certain decisions and be held accountable for those decisions.
As we look at Acts 13:38 Paul says, “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, [39] and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.”
This is emphasizing the human individual responsibility aspect of the gospel. You determine you eternal destiny—“everyone who believes.” It never says everyone who is preordained, everyone who is elect, or everyone who is determined by God. The Scriptures never put it that way.
This gets into another little rabbit trail. We need to be educated and aware of some things that are happening. We have pointed out that within the free grace gospel, the Free Grace Evangelical Society narrowed the gospel to simply an offer of eternal life and believing in Jesus for eternal life; anything else wasn’t the gospel. The problem with that is that that is just one facet of the gospel presentation. You can believe in Jesus for forgiveness of sins, eternal life, justification, redemption, or reconciliation. Or you can believe in Him because you know that is the only way to heaven, you are just going to trust Him and you really don’t understand all of the other stuff—as with a six-year-old, because that is the level at which you can comprehend it. You are not going to sit down and go through nineteen points on the doctrine of regeneration when you are six years old. But what happens when people start trying to slice the baloney really thin and ask certain questions like what is the smallest amount of information you have to believe in order to be saved? That can lead you down the wrong trail. That is one wrong trail that the GES crowd went down. The other crowd started getting upset about talking about volition in salvation, that faith wasn’t volitional. In reading their literature, it is thought that what they are really reacting to is a branch of evangelism and tent revivalism—Billy Graham type evangelism—where people say you need know when you decided to trust in Christ, and if you can’t pin-point when you made that decision for Jesus then you are not saved. It is decisional. That seems to be what they are seeking to refute, but what they end up saying is that faith isn’t really volitional. So that created another little problem. It is important to understand these distinctions.
Here, “everyone who believes.” When you put a word like believe into an imperatival context, either an imperatival participle or an imperative mood verb, the imperative demands a response, yes or no. You have to make a decision. It is simple grammar. And yet the twists and turns and the gymnastics people went through to try to argue that faith really wasn’t volitional! They ended up saying things that Calvinists would say on the side of irresistible grace.
There is the presentation of what Christ did—provide forgiveness of sins. Then there is the challenge to the individual—“everyone who believes.” That is the condition. Then the result is “justified from all things, from which you could not be freed [justified] through the Law of Moses.” That is the presentation of the gospel.
Then there was a challenge, and the challenge is a warning of judgment that is about to come if they reject this free offer of God’s grace.
Acts 13:40
Acts 13:40
40 Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:
That is his statement for introducing a quote from the Old Testament.
There are four basic different ways by which New Testament writers quote Old Testament passages as being fulfilled.
The first type of quotation is literal prophecy; literal fulfillment. Example: Micah 5:2.
Micah 5:2
Micah 5:2
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”
Then there is a second category of quotation in which a historical event occurs, but is used by the New Testament writer as representing a type or pattern of future fulfillment.
Hosea 11:1
Hosea 11:1
1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.
Matthew 2:15 takes that verse and shows that this represented, just as the Jews coming out of Egypt, a type or a picture of Jesus coming out of Egypt after the family fled there when Herod was threatening to kill all of the male babies and then came back.
Matthew 2:15
Matthew 2:15
15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
The third way of quoting is when a statement is not a literal prophecy in the event in the Old Testament, it is a pattern that is simila. So, it is quoted as this is similar to that. It is not a literal fulfillment. E.g. Joel 2, the prediction that your old men will dream dreams and your young women will prophesy, etc. The context indicates that that comes at the time of the day of the Lord. Peter quotes from that in Acts chapter two but it is not a literal fulfillment. Of all the things that are mentioned in Joel 2 none are found in Acts 2. The one thing that happens in Acts 2, speaking in tongues, isn’t mentioned in Joel 2. Peter is saying that this event is similar to that, and he’s just using that prophecy to point out a pattern or a similarity of how God works.
That is what we have here in Acts 13.
He is quoting from Habakkuk 1:5 in order to show that there is a pattern in the way that God deals with sinful disobedience. When people reject His offer of grace then God brings judgment.
Acts 13:41
Acts 13:41
41 ‘Behold, you despisers, Marvel and perish! For I work a work in your days, A work which you will by no means believe, Though one were to declare it to you.’ ”
There is a certain proper self-righteous indignation here. He looks, and it just seems that God is letting them get away with everything. Such evil is going on, and God doesn’t seem to deal with it. Habakkuk is going to God at the beginning of the book and saying, Why don’t you deal with it? God says He is going to deal with it, He is going to bring the Chaldeans who are going to destroy the country.
Habakkuk 1:5-6
Habakkuk 1:5-6
5 “Look among the nations and watch— Be utterly astounded! For I will work a work in your days Which you would not believe, though it were told you. 6 For indeed I am raising up the Chaldeans, A bitter and hasty nation Which marches through the breadth of the earth, To possess dwelling places that are not theirs.
God is saying watch and see what I am about to do. It is a literal prophecy.
Is it literal in Acts 13? Is that the fulfillment? No, this was fulfilled in the Old Testament. Paul is saying that just as God brought judgment upon the Israelites at that time because they rejected God’s grace and turned from worshipping God to worshipping idols, so now you have a chance to turn back at this point, worship God, and accept His Messiah as your savior who has provided you with forgiveness of sins; but if you reject that then you will face the same consequences, the same kind of consequences that the Israelites faced in 586 BC. The implication in Acts is that their hearts are hardened, and many of them won’t believe, no matter how well it is declared to them. They are like the people of Judah in 586 BC. They rejected God, rejected the prophets, and had everything painted for them very clearly, and they still said no. That is negative volition. It blinds us to the truth. This is how Paul closed his gospel presentation. It generated a lot of discussion.
Throughout Acts we find the same subject matter, so what Paul is saying fits with all of these messages. It is the same challenge, this warning that there will be a significant judgment on Israel.
Acts 3:22-23
Acts 3:22-23
22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’
Judgment will come if you reject Jesus as Messiah.
Acts 4:11-12
Acts 4:11-12
11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 10:42
Acts 10:42
42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.
Acts 17:30-31
Acts 17:30-31
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
The point: there is judgment coming.
Acts 13:42
Acts 13:42
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
These are Jews and seekers of God among the Gentiles. When he uses the term “Jews,” he is not just talking about ethnic Jews. All through the Gospel of John, John refers to “the Jews” as the bad guys. But John is a Jew, Jesus is a Jew, the other disciples are all Jews, and many of those who believed in Jesus were Jews. The term refers to the leaders of the group, leaders of the Jews. So when the leadership left the synagogue, the Gentiles, these proselytes, seekers of God, hung back in order to talk to Paul.
The term translated “begged” here is the word παρακαλέω PARAKALEO. It is sometimes translated “challenge,” sometimes the basic meaning of calling to one’s side; but it also has the idea of making an urgent request for something. So they are pleading will Paul to stay another week and then to address the synagogue again next Sabbath.
Acts 13:43
Acts 13:43
43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
This would be talking about the Orthodox-like of the group, and these would be among the leaders, the more devout among the group.
43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
We are seeing a transition in Paul’s ministry, and now the focus is going to be more upon the Gentiles. The Jews here would be those who were really serious about studying the Word, who were really seeking out its meaning, and the Gentile proselytes who were also genuinely involved in trying to understand the Word of God and to make it a part of their lives. They are the ones who truly express positive volition and are the ones Paul is focusing on here.
During that next week, we could speculate that Paul and Barnabas didn’t leave town and that people are coming around and having ongoing discussions. They would discuss what Paul had been saying in the synagogue the week before. This was the main topic of conversation in the Jewish community and among the Gentiles: whether this was really true. And if we can bring in some ideas from some of the other places that Paul went, the more devout are probably searching the Scriptures to see how these messianic prophecies that they knew fit in with Jesus. So the next week, after the excitement had been building all week, almost the whole city came together to hear the Word of the Lord (Kurios) from the apostle Paul.
Acts 13:44-45
Acts 13:44-45
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.
They were filled with envy. In Romans chapter eleven, Paul says that the Jews will look at God’s blessing on the Gentiles and, eventually, stir them to jealousy so that they will want what the Gentiles have. But that is not what is happening here; just the reverse is happening. A certain segment of the Jews becomes jealous of the Gentiles, and they begin arguing and disputing with Paul.
What happens in this kind of context is that all of a sudden, it becomes about ego. Nobody is listening and trying to get to the truth of the matter; they are more concerned about refuting whatever the other person is saying so that they look like they win the debate. That is what we see a lot of today in politics and the news. People debate each other; nobody cares about the truth; they just care about being able to sound better, look better, or put down the other person. It doesn’t matter if their facts are correct, just as long as they win the debate.
Here, they are contradicting Paul. And the use of “blasphemy” in Scripture isn’t usually against people; it is against God. You can revile against some people—same word as used for blasphemy—but primarily it is used against God. They are contradicting Paul, and the blasphemy is against God. Their contradiction and hostility to Paul and Paul’s message of the gospel is a blasphemy against God. And so they are opposing everything that Paul has spoken. Again, we have to understand the Jews here are the leadership in the congregation.
Then Paul and Barnabas respond with great confidence and boldness.
Acts 13:46
Acts 13:46
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
They spoke out boldly against those who were challenging them. Remember, they were in somebody else’s house. One of the things we tell young pastors is that if they are invited to speak in someone else’s church, they should be careful they don’t step on their toes. They are not there to correct the pastor in front of his congregation, and they are not there to correct the congregation about views they have; they are there to preach the truth as clearly as they can without creating trauma in the process. Here, Paul and Barnabas are having to create trauma because they had been attacked as they had been teaching the Word. They would stand their ground and not back off, and they responded boldly.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
This is the first time something is introduced that has some sort of implication of necessity or something that has been determined. But it is not in the deterministic sense. It is that God had a plan, and that plan was that they were supposed to take the gospel to the Jews first. So because that is the way God planned it, that was the way they executed it, so that by doing so, the rejection by the Jews would make it evident to all that the gospel should go to the Gentiles.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
this is what we want to focus on here. Where is the emphasis on the terms of responsibility? It is on the individual Jew in the congregation. They are the ones who make the decision to reject what they have been told:
Acts 13:46 “You judge yourselves,”
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
There is a reflexive pronoun there for emphasis:
Acts 13:46 “unworthy of eternal life.”
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
It is really interesting how Paul sets this up and Luke presents it. If we don’t understand this verse, we can’t understand verse 48, which is the key verse that Calvinism stands on. What was the gospel message that Paul proclaimed? That Jesus died so that you could have forgiveness of sins. But now, he doesn’t mention forgiveness of sins here; he mentions something else—eternal life.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
How did they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life? By rejecting the gospel message of Paul. So, the responsibility is there. He doesn’t say, “You rejected it because you were ordained to eternal condemnation.” He doesn’t say, “You rejected it because you were predestined to the lake of fire.” He doesn’t say, “You rejected it because you were not one of the elect.”
He says, “You rejected it because you judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life.” It is all your decision. Because of that, it has consequences, one of which is that we turn to the Gentiles.
Verse 46 is followed by an explanation with a quote from the Old Testament.
Acts 13:46-47
Acts 13:46-47
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
It was predicted in the Old Testament that the Jews would be the gospel bearers to bring light to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 42:6
Isaiah 42:6
6 “I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,
So this is part of God’s command to the Jews. They were supposed to be a light to the Gentiles. And that is fulfilled through the gospel ministry of the apostles.
Isaiah 49:6
Isaiah 49:6
6 Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
Paul recognizes that and applies it to the situation.
Then, we see the contrast. It is between the Jewish hostility and their rejection of the message of forgiveness and their rejection of the offer of eternal life.
The Gentiles welcome it.
47 For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
This is one of those verses where Calvinists stake their claim for unconditional election. When they read that, they say what precedes belief is that in eternity past, God had to make a decision as to who would be ordained to eternal life and who would not. They base that on the fact that the verb form there, “had been appointed,” is a perfect tense verb, which refers to an act that was completed at some time in the past with results that continue on through history. So, they take this phrase, “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed,” and say that if you are not appointed to eternal life, you won’t believe.
We have to stop a minute and say let’s look and see if that is really the best way to translate this in light of the context. “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” is contrasted with the response of the Jews in verse 46: “since you repudiate/reject it, (not “since you weren’t appointed to eternal life”” and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we turn to the Gentiles.” What it sounds like in the way it is usually translated is that on the one hand, there are the Jews who are making a decision to reject the gospel, and on the other hand, the Gentiles respond because they were appointed to respond. But that is comparing one idea, which is of volition in verse 46, with a deterministic idea in verse 48, and that is like contrasting apples with oranges. It doesn’t make sense, it is contradictory. It looks that way in English, so we have to go back to the original languages.
End of 2nd Service 4/13/2025
End of 2nd Service 4/13/2025
Sunday, May 4, 2025
Sunday, May 4, 2025
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Last week we ended looking at
47 For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
This is one of those verses where Calvinists stake their claim for unconditional election. When they read that, they say what precedes belief is that in eternity past, God had to make a decision as to who would be ordained to eternal life and who would not. They base that on the fact that the verb form there, “had been appointed,” is a perfect tense verb, which refers to an act that was completed at some time in the past with results that continue on through history. So, they take this phrase, “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed,” and say that if you are not appointed to eternal life, you won’t believe.
We have to stop a minute and say let’s look and see if that is really the best way to translate this in light of the context. “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” is contrasted with the response of the Jews in verse 46: “since you repudiate/reject it, (not “since you weren’t appointed to eternal life”” and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we turn to the Gentiles.” What it sounds like in the way it is usually translated is that on the one hand, there are the Jews who are making a decision to reject the gospel, and on the other hand, the Gentiles respond because they were appointed to respond. But that is comparing one idea, which is of volition in verse 46, with a deterministic idea in verse 48, and that is like contrasting apples with oranges. It doesn’t make sense, it is contradictory. It looks that way in English, so we have to go back to the original languages.
The verb that is translated “had been appointed to eternal life” is τάσσω TASSO, a perfect tense verb, which means completed action. The first word, “as many as” is a pronoun ὅσος HOSOS that indicates a large number of individuals, and it focuses on each of the individuals in that group who had at some time in the past had been something, usually translated as appointed or sometimes ordained—to eternal life. That whole phrase is the subject of the verb “believed.” We have to understand what the word tasso means. Its general meaning is to appoint or station, to rank or to bring order to something. It is used as a military term, and it is obvious that some people want to bring the military context in to understand the word's meaning. However, the military context of ordering someone in ranks is just one application of this term. The lexicon Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich is the third edition of the most respected lexicon of Koine Greek. Among the meanings of the word tasso, it lists to belong to a group—“as many as belong to eternal life believed.” That is a totally different idea, isn’t it? “As many as were classed among those with eternal life.”
The second meaning listed in Arndt and Gingrich says, “It has the basic idea of giving instructions as to what must be done.”
So, if I am going to appoint you to a task, what I mean when I am instructing you is I am appointing you to a course of action. That makes the best sense to take that phrase, as identified by Arndt and Gingrich, as the second meaning of the term and to use that. It makes a little more sense. It also clearly, in other passages, has the idea of determining, appointing, or fixing something. However, we have to look at contexts to determine how these words are used. When we look at the phrase “as many as were classified (or ranked) among those with eternal life believed.” That is one way of interpreting this. That is the idea of “as many as were identified with eternal life.” The second option: “As many as were given instructions as to what must be done for eternal life believed.” That was the second idea given by Arndt and Gingrich.
Suddenly, everything is cleared up because it fits the context. This emphasizes personal decision-making, and it is contrasted to the wrong decision made by the Jews with the right decision made here.
Another suggestion that has some merit is to translate this as “As many as were devoted or oriented to eternal life.”
Who are the ones who believed? The ones who believed were the more devout Jews and the more intent Gentile proselytes who converted to Judaism and studied the Word intensely. These were the ones who followed Paul and Barnabas out and were plying them with questions because they really wanted to understand the truth. You could say they were devoted to eternal life. This word tasso is translated that way in 1 Corinthians 16:15 where at the close of the epistle, Paul is giving some personal instructions.
1 Corinthians 16:15
1 Corinthians 16:15
15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints—
The other thing is that tasso is in a present passive or present middle construction. Middle is a reflexive mood. In Greek, in certain tenses, they don’t have a different ending for the passive and a different ending for the middle voice; they are the same. You have to discern from context whether it is going to be middle or passive. Here, it is used as an aorist middle, which has the idea that they have devoted themselves or focused on something. That makes a tremendous amount of sense if we look at Acts 13:48 again, that in contrast to verse 46, there is this one group of unbelievers who reject the truth. They consider themselves unworthy of eternal life, and in contrast to that are Gentiles who have devoted themselves or focused themselves on understanding eternal life. They are the ones who have been instructed in eternal life, and they are the ones who believe.
Acts 13:46,48
Acts 13:46,48
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
That makes a lot more sense than bringing in the idea of using it as “as many as were ordained or appointed.” It is not even protasso—pro = before—which would be “foreordained.” It doesn’t say that. And it doesn’t say “as many as were foreordained to believe,” it says those who were tasso to eternal life. It skips over “believe.” They are not foreordained or predestined to believe but foreordained for eternal life. Another way to understand this is that God has ordained a path to eternal life, and that path to eternal life means that you have to believe and accept the gospel. And if you accept the gospel, you are ordained to eternal life because you have followed the path that God set forth to get eternal life, and that is by faith alone in Christ alone.
Acts 13:49
Acts 13:49
49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region.
So there was this tremendous positive response by the Gentiles and they are telling everybody about the fact that they can have forgiveness of sins by trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. In contrast, the Jews are creating hostility. They are stirring up the devout and prominent men. In other words, they are going to the leaders in the community and slandering and making false accusations about Paul and Barnabas, stirring up everybody against them so that they are raising up persecution against them with the result that they are kicked out of the town and the province.
What Paul and Barnabas do is shake the dust off their feet against them, a symbol of the fact that they did not hold themselves accountable for the decisions of the people.
Acts 13:50-52
Acts 13:50-52
50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
The term “disciples” is not a synonym for the people who are saved. There are people who are saved who aren’t disciples. A disciple is someone who is committed to being a student of somebody. Some people are believers who aren’t concerned about being a student of the Scriptures. The disciples are those who are pursuing spiritual growth and making that a priority in their lives. The result is that this is another one of those statements that Luke makes in bringing us up to date on the expansion of the gospel. Those who were pursuing spiritual growth were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
This isn’t the word used in Ephesians 5:18 to be filled with the Spirit, the word pleroo. This is the word pimplemi, a descriptive term related to maturity and spiritual growth.
18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,
In Ephesians 5:18 there is a verbal command with a dative of means—Be filled by means of the Spirit. Here we have a description: they were full of joy and full of the Holy Spirit. Their life was characterized by a walk by this.
Expansion: Belief vs Disobedience, Signs and Wonders. Acts 14:1-12
Expansion: Belief vs Disobedience, Signs and Wonders. Acts 14:1-12
We are now in Acts 14, where we see the continued expansion of the church. The church is now being expanded from a purely Jewish framework to a Gentile framework. This transition takes place over the next forty years and continues into the first part of the second century. It was not until approximately 135 AD that the second Jewish revolt against Rome, the Bar Kochba revolt, was seen, and a genuine, hard and fast separation of Jews and Gentiles, Judaism and Christianity, was seen. Christians still went to the synagogue until the first Jewish revolt (66-70 AD). Those who received Jesus Christ as Messiah were just considered to be another sect of Judaism, and there wasn’t this hard distinction that developed later.
The first time that a major explosive division between Judaistic Jews and Christian Jews took place was at the time of the Jewish revolt. As the armies of Rome surrounded Jerusalem, the Christians in Jerusalem recognized the prophecy of Jesus that saw Jerusalem being surrounded and that they were to flee to the mountains. After the death of Nero, there was a pause, and the Christians who were in Jerusalem and Judea left; they got out of Israel. This was viewed as an act of treason by many of the Jews, and that continued to be a problem all the way up to the second Jewish revolt in 135 AD. It is interesting that, according to the sources that we have, not a single Jewish Christian lost their life in either the first or the second Jewish revolt, because of Jesus’ prophecy that was part of the Olivet discourse.
So, this is the beginning of this outreach to the Gentiles. Paul follows the standard procedure of taking the gospel to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. He has left Antioch and gone to Iconium.
Acts 14:1
Acts 14:1
1 Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed.
The “they” referred to Barnabas and Paul. They went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and again Paul has left one location and will repeat the same procedure in a second location and give the gospel first to the Jews. There is an immediate response where a large number believed. But it was to also stir up a little trouble.
This is in the province of Galatia, and this is one of the groups that the apostle Paul addressed in his very first epistle, the epistle to the Galatians. He goes from Antioch to Iconium and then to Derby and Lystra, and it is these believers who come to the gospel—they believe and are saved—but then they become confused because of the Jews who come in and pervert the gospel that Paul had proclaimed.
The name Iconium has a Phrygian background, an interesting legendary one. They had a story, a mythology, of a great flood that destroyed mankind, and life was restored when Prometheus and Athena (of Greek mythology) breathed life into human beings made from mud left over from the flood waters. So, we see how pagan myth always has a sort of core, residual memory of actual truth. They had the story of the universal flood and the idea of man being created from the chemicals of the soil. As this new life, these new human images, as they referred to them, came into existence; they were called icons. The Greek word for an image is ikon, and the root of the word Iconium is ikon.
During the Greek period, after the death of Alexander the Great, Iconium was part of the territory controlled by the Seleucid kings and controlled by Syria, and this turned Iconium into a Hellenistic city where the language was no longer the language of the Phrygians, but it became the language of the Greeks. In 36 BC, Mark Anthony gave the city to Antimus, one of the eastern rulers, and when he died in 25 BC, Iconium joined the neighboring cities of Lystra and Derby.
So Paul comes to this city, goes to the synagogue, and there proclaims the gospel. The positive news is that the Jews and the Greeks believed. The word here for believing is [πιστεύω—PISTEUO], and it simply means to believe something. To believe something means that you agree in your mind or you assent to the fact that that something is true. There are those who think that that is a weak definition of faith, that faith isn’t just intellectual assent. But that is a perfectly sound definition. First of all, if it is not intellectual, then with what organ of your body are you believing it? Some say it is heart faith, but there is no intellectual activity taking place in your heart. The heart is the physical organ that pumps your blood. So, the seat of your belief is the mind. The mind is the source of thought, and so faith is an intellectual activity.
To believe something, you have to first understand it. That doesn’t mean that you exhaustively comprehend it. For example, when the apostle Peter was out on the fishing boat and the Lord Jesus walked on the water, Peter did not understand the physical properties that allowed Jesus to walk on the water. But he had enough understanding to know that Jesus, as God and as the creator, could control these things and that he could trust Jesus to enable him to walk upon the water. So, he did it. So, faith doesn’t mean you have an exhaustive understanding of something, but you have to understand something. It is not vacuous, you don’t say, oh well, the pastor said it, so I believe it. You can’t believe something you don’t understand. That doesn’t mean you understand it exhaustively, but you have to at least be able to comprehend and restate something in your own words in a limited sense, otherwise you can’t believe it. Belief is something that says, I understand what X is, I believe that to be true. That is what faith is. It is an intellectual activity, it is not an emotional activity, and it is a result of a volitional act because you have to come to understand that something is true. That means you are moving from a position of non-understanding or non-comprehension to a position where you say you understand what that statement is expressing, and you are convinced from the evidence presented and explained to me that it is true. Another way of saying that is that we have been persuaded by evidence, by explanation, or by logic that something is true. So, there is one form of activity called persuasion, and then there is the response to the information given, to choose to be persuaded and to believe, or to resist the evidence and to not believe.
There is a reason for expressing it this way, and that is because within the so-called free grace theology, something came up that has also eroded the orthodoxy of some theologians. It was in reference to understanding the gospel. One of the problems was that they began to ask the question about what is the least amount of information I need in order to be saved, and they limited that to Jesus’ statement in John 5 that it was to simply believe in Him for eternal life.
Another aspect that came up was the aspect of persuasion. They went to these two words that we are going to see in these verses. We need to be aware of this. Part of the job of a pastor is to protect the sheep from the ravenous wolves. And the way to do that is to help the congregation to understand some of the issues that are floating around out there.
pisteuo is a word that means to believe. What is the opposite of believing? Unbelieving, disbelieving, and that would be apisteuo—negative prefix.
Acts 14:2
Acts 14:2
2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren.
We get an opposite statement here in verse 2, as translated wrongly in the NKJV. They understood a contrast is going on, so the translators of NKJV put it as belief versus disbelief or unbelief. But the Greek here translated “the unbelieving Jews” (NKJV) is not apisteuo, it is ἀπειθέω--APEITHEO. There is an etymological connection between pisteuo and peitho, but it doesn’t mean anything; it doesn’t mean they are tied together in terms of usage. According to Arndt and Gingrich, apeitheo has two meanings in the text: to be disobedient or disobey. It doesn’t mean unbelief. It is related to unbelief because what is the result when you don’t believe the gospel? But remember, it is cause and effect. When you disbelieve the gospel, you are disobedient, but disbelief is not a synonym for disobedience. They are two different things.
Apeitheo is consistently translated as " disobedient in a lot of passages.
Luke 1:17
Luke 1:17
17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
John 3:36
John 3:36
36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
The nkjv translates it “unbelief” or “disbelief in John 3:36, which is wrong. The NASB gets it right.
John 3:36 NASB
John 3:36 NASB
36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
The nasb translates it correctly in John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
The word (according to the Greek dictionaries and usage) apeitho means disobedience.
The verse that our errant brethren in the free grace movement have camped out on is Acts 28:24.
Acts 28:24
Acts 28:24
The NKJV translation reads:
24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.
Once again Paul is proclaiming the gospel. Some were persuaded, and that is the word peitho. The basic, fundamental error of logic from the free grace guys is that they said: “Ah, peitho (persuade) is the opposite of disbelief.” They go to this verse as if they are opposites. Where they go with that in their theology is to say that belief is simply being persuaded; it is not a decision. So in their view it is not decisional.
What they are really arguing against is the idea that is expressed in some Baptist and some other evangelical quarters that if you can’t pinpoint when you made a decision for Jesus, then you can’t be sure you are saved. They refer to that ultimately as “decisional evangelism.” They are right as far as it goes at that point. You don’t have to know when you made a decision to trust in Jesus.
A.T. Roberston, an extremely well-known Baptist Greek scholar from the early part of the 20th century, has a somewhat confusing statement in his commentary called Word Pictures of the New Testament. He says, “Strictly, apeitheo does mean to disobey, and apisteuo mean to disbelief.”
As far as he goes at that point he is absolutely correct. But then he says,
“But that distinction is not observed in John 3:36 or in Acts 19:9 or Acts 28:24.”
But that is only in the English translations. He wrote in the early part of the 20th century, when basically there were a couple of other English translations, but primarily everything was going off the KJV. That distinction isn’t observed in the English translations but in the original Greek text. He then goes on to say that the word apeitheo means to be apeithes, which is to be unwilling to be persuaded, or to withhold belief, and then also to withhold obedience. He is waffling here. This is where critical reading skills come into play.
He starts by saying strictly peaking, apeitheo means disobedient and apisteuo means disbelief. He is waffling slightly and trying to act like he didn’t mean that. And lastly, he says the two meanings run into one another. Well, they do because one leads to the next, but they are not the same; they are not interchangeable or synonyms; there is a process that goes on. In any movement of the will and decision to believe in something, the facts persuade first. Then, when one lets himself (passive activity) be persuaded by the facts or information, then he chooses to believe or not. A person can resist facts and logic because they really don’t want to believe where the argument is taking him. He is not teachable and doesn’t want to follow that chain; he has already made up his mind, and no matter what the facts are, he is not going to respond. He doesn’t want to be persuaded.
But if he has an open mind, is humble and objective, then as he learns the facts, he is willing to be persuaded. So, you go through that process of persuasion, which culminates in his saying yes, he believes what you are saying. But the conclusion of the process of persuasion is belief. Being persuaded is not the same as believing. Persuasion emphasizes someone convincing another person of the truth, so belief and persuasion are not the same. Belief results from being willing to be persuaded. That is where volition enters in.
But our free grace brethren want to take volition completely out (some of them, not all) of this equation and say it is passive: you are being persuaded, and suddenly, you’ve been persuaded. There is a very uncomfortable similarity between how they explain this and how our high-Calvinist friends explain irresistible grace. Because you don’t make a decision, it is just something that happens to you due to an external process, and your will isn’t involved at all.
But the issue is, if the lexicons are correct, if A.T. Robertson is correct, and if most English translations translate apeitheo correctly, it means to be disobedient. Disobedience is an act of the will, a choice to reject something. This is why belief in the gospel is presented as a command in some places, like Acts 16:31.
Acts 16:31
Acts 16:31
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
If you ignore or reject the command, it is disobedience. God commands us to obey the gospel, which means to believe that Jesus died on the cross for us. If we reject the gospel, then we are disobedient to God; that is an act of the will. So if disobedience is an act of the will, and it is an act of negative volition, then belief is a positive act of the will.
The “unbelieving Jews” in that verse mean the disobedient Jews. The term refers to unbelievers who are disobedient because that is the end result of unbelief: disobedience to the gospel.
Acts 14:2
Acts 14:2
2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren.
The word for “minds” is ψυχή PSUCHE or “soul.” We get our English word PSYCHE from this. It views the thinking part of the soul here, but it affects the entire immaterial part of life. This is one of those places where the soul simply refers to the immaterial part of a person’s being. Poisoning or embittering the minds originates with the sin nature, but it is a mental attitude. The translators correctly caught the Greek idiom here: that their thought process towards their brethren, i.e., those who responded positively to the gospel, has developed into bitterness, and that results in division in the synagogue.
There has been a huge response of Jews and Gentiles to the gospel, and they leave the synagogue and meet separately.
Acts 14:3
Acts 14:3
Acts 14:3 NASB “Therefore they spent a long time …”
3 Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Long time is really not what it says in the Greek. The Greek uses the word hikanos, which means “sufficient.” They stayed there a sufficient amount of time, long enough to teach basic doctrine to those who had now become Christians.
“…{there} speaking boldly {with reliance} …”
Greek: [παρρησιάζομαι—PARRESIAZOMAI] which means to speak with boldness or confidence.
“… upon the Lord, who was testifying [μαρτυρέω--MARTUREO] to the word of His grace …” The “word” is logos, often referring to the written Word but it can also be translated “message.”
Arndt and Gingrich has long columns of different nuances to the word logos. It is the word from which we get our word “logic,” and also the word “logo.”
It has to do with a word, a message, a statement, the statement of something, the science of something. One of the meanings is simply message, so every time we see the message of God, we tend to look at it and say the Word of God, the Bible. But it is really the message of God. In context, what are they talking about? The message that the apostles are bringing. It is the message of God’s grace: they can have a free salvation because Jesus Christ provided salvation for them. So, it is a better contextual translation to say that the Lord was “bearing witness to the message of grace.”
How?
“ …as granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.”
It was an external witness. The word there “to be done” is ginomai, something that came into existence, something that was not part of their experience but now entered into their experience—miracles to be done by the hands of Barnabas and Paul—primarily Paul.
Barnabas isn’t an apostle, capital A, like Paul is. We have to understand that basically, there are different kinds of people who are called apostles in the New Testament. The Greek verb apostello means to commission or send somebody out on a mission. It depends on who is doing the commissioning or sending, who is being sent, and what they are being sent for. So, one group in the New Testament is commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ and sent out on a mission to take the gospel to the whole world. Those are the apostles, capital A. Then, another type of apostle is commissioned by individual local churches, who are sent out on a mission. Those are apostles with a lower case A. Barnabas is not one of the original eleven; the Lord Jesus Christ does not commission him, and other passages of Scripture tell us that the requirement for being an apostle is being a witness to the resurrected Jesus Christ and being commissioned directly by Him.
We must take a little time to look at “signs and wonders” in the New Testament. This has become a confusing thing down through the ages because a lot of folk don’t understand the nature and function of the signs, wonders, and miracles in the New Testament. We have an example of their primary purpose here in this verse. Miracles were performed to bear witness to the message. It is confirmatory, it is not authenticating. It confirms the credentials of the apostles and the credentials of the Lord Jesus Christ. But it isn’t in and of itself convincing. If miracles were convincing, everybody in Iconium would have responded positively to the gospel, and Jesus would not have been crucified. Jesus performed many different signs, as John tells us in his Gospel, and He was crucified. So the performance of miracles is not designed to convince people of the truth. This was the basic error that led to a lot of confusion in the 70s, 80s, and 90s under the term “power evangelism,” which was promoted out of southern California by a pastor by the name of John Wember. It was also known as “the third wave of the Holy Spirit” and “the vineyard movement.”
There were many, many Jews as well as Gentiles who were unconvinced by the miracles because they were negative in terms of their will.
The term “signs” is used 77 times in the New Testament; 61 times in the Gospels. Remember that three of the Gospels are very similar to one another, which is why they are called Synoptic Gospels. Then the Gospel of John uses the term in a little bit of a distinct manner because he is going to present the signs that Jesus did to authenticate His Messiahship—and Acts; only seven times in Revelation, which leaves only 16 uses between Romans and Jude—so it is not a significant topic in terms of New testament epistles. Many of those uses point out the Antichrist's false miracles and problems in the end times. So, it does not talk about the miracles that church-age believers should experience.
One of the most significant signs in the New Testament is the sign of resurrection.
Matthew 12:38-39
Matthew 12:38-39
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” 39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The signs and wonders movement reverses that and says you need signs. Jesus is saying that the desire for signs is wrong. He gives signs, but seeking a sign is not putting faith and trust in the statements of Scripture. The word “signs” is only used one more time in Acts,, and that is in the next chapter (15:12).
Acts 15:12
Acts 15:12
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.
So after Acts 15, the term “signs and wonders” doesn’t appear again in the book.
The second word that is used here is “wonders”—teras in the Greek—occurs only 16 times in the New Testament: three times in the Gospels, where it is usually referring to false wonders in the end times, nine times in Acts, and four times in the epistles. This is not a major doctrine. When we examine the usage, it is really not talking about the expectation of the miraculous in the church age. Usually it refers back to the Gospels like in Romans 15:19
Romans 15:19
Romans 15:19
19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Paul is using the term in our passage to refer to the miracles that occurr at the beginning of his ministry, as he will shortly explain to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 12:12
2 Corinthians 12:12
2 Corinthians 12:12
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.
NASB “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”
Paul is talking to the Corinthians about his second missionary journey. So, even though Acts doesn’t use the term signs and wonders, some miracles occurred when Paul was in Corinth during the second missionary journey. But they were the signs of an apostle; they weren’t performed by the everyday believer. They were authenticating signs to the apostles, who were the church's foundation (Ephesians 2:20).
Ephesians 2:20
Ephesians 2:20
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
There are also passages where these words are used in the negative: the coming of the lawless one or the Antichrist is according to the working of Satan with all power, signs, and lying wonders.
Signs and wonders were miraculous events used to establish the credentials of Jesus as the Messiah and the apostles as His messengers. For example, the prophecies of the Old Testament in Isaiah 42:7; 29:18; 35:4 talk about the fact that when the Messiah came the lame would walk, the blind would receive sight, the deaf would hear. These would indicate the coming of the Messiah.
Isaiah 42:7
Isaiah 42:7
7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
Isaiah 29:18
Isaiah 29:18
18 In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book, And the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.
Isaiah 35:4
Isaiah 35:4
4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted, “Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, With the recompense of God; He will come and save you.”
Isaiah 35:5-6
Isaiah 35:5-6
5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing. For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, And streams in the desert.
So there was a prediction that there would be miracles that would authenticate the claims of the Messiah.
Jesus’ miracles, therefore, were not performed at random or indiscriminately. He didn’t always heal those who needed healing or perform on demand. He only healed those at certain times and places related to what He was teaching and specifically to establish His credentials. Jesus didn’t heal just to heal. Otherwise, He would have healed everybody.
During the apostolic era, healing followed the same pattern. There are several examples in Acts.
End of 5/4/2025
End of 5/4/2025
Sunday, May 11, 2025
Sunday, May 11, 2025
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Synagogue Jews
One of the most significant signs in the New Testament is the sign of resurrection.
Matthew 12:38-39
Matthew 12:38-39
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” 39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The signs and wonders movement reverses that and says you need signs. Jesus is saying that the desire for signs is wrong. He gives signs, but seeking a sign is not putting faith and trust in the statements of Scripture. The word “signs” is only used one more time in Acts,, and that is in the next chapter (15:12).
Acts 15:12
Acts 15:12
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.
So after Acts 15, the term “signs and wonders” doesn’t appear again in the book.
The second word that is used here is “wonders”—teras in the Greek—occurs only 16 times in the New Testament: three times in the Gospels, where it is usually referring to false wonders in the end times, nine times in Acts, and four times in the epistles. This is not a major doctrine. When we examine the usage, it is really not talking about the expectation of the miraculous in the church age. Usually it refers back to the Gospels like in Romans 15:19
Romans 15:19
Romans 15:19
19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Paul is using the term in our passage to refer to the miracles that occurr at the beginning of his ministry, as he will shortly explain to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 12:12
2 Corinthians 12:12
2 Corinthians 12:12
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.
NASB “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”
Paul is talking to the Corinthians about his second missionary journey. So, even though Acts doesn’t use the term signs and wonders, some miracles occurred when Paul was in Corinth during the second missionary journey. But they were the signs of an apostle; they weren’t performed by the everyday believer. They were authenticating signs to the apostles, who were the church's foundation (Ephesians 2:20).
Ephesians 2:20
Ephesians 2:20
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
There are also passages where these words are used in the negative: the coming of the lawless one or the Antichrist is according to the working of Satan with all power, signs, and lying wonders.
Signs and wonders were miraculous events used to establish the credentials of Jesus as the Messiah and the apostles as His messengers. For example, the prophecies of the Old Testament in Isaiah 42:7; 29:18; 35:4 talk about the fact that when the Messiah came the lame would walk, the blind would receive sight, the deaf would hear. These would indicate the coming of the Messiah.
Isaiah 42:7
Isaiah 42:7
7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
Isaiah 29:18
Isaiah 29:18
18 In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book, And the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.
Isaiah 35:4
Isaiah 35:4
4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted, “Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, With the recompense of God; He will come and save you.”
Isaiah 35:5-6
Isaiah 35:5-6
5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing. For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, And streams in the desert.
So there was a prediction that there would be miracles that would authenticate the claims of the Messiah.
Jesus’ miracles, therefore, were not performed at random or indiscriminately. He didn’t always heal those who needed healing or perform on demand. He only healed those at certain times and places related to what He was teaching and specifically to establish His credentials. Jesus didn’t heal just to heal. Otherwise, He would have healed everybody.
During the apostolic era, healing followed the same pattern. There are several examples in Acts.
What about Mark 16? First of all, there is a textual problem. It has an extended ending, but it is not well documented in terms of the text. There is a shorter ending. Nobody is really sure where the ending is. But assuming this is true:
Mark 16:18
Mark 16:18
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
All of those things happened under the apostles. They didn’t last beyond the apostolic age. Jesus is not saying that all believers will exhibit these things. He is just saying that these things will occur with the gospel in the future under the apostolic ministry.
The word “signs” is used frequently in the Olivet discourse, which discusses the signs of the end times. The disciples asked, “What are the signs of your coming?” He is not talking about anything miraculous; he is talking about the indications of the Second Coming. He is talking about the counterfeit miracles of the Antichrist as well as the prophetic fulfillment of the various signs indicating the proximity of Jesus’ coming.
The Gospel with the most significant word usage is the Gospel of John. What was the sign they had just had in chapter 20? The resurrection.
John 20:30-31
John 20:30-31
30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
It confirms to us who Jesus Christ is. That is the function of signs. When these signs occurred in the early church,, they established the credentials for the church, for Jesus as Messiah, the apostles, and their ministry. They don’t need to be repeated in every generation, every decade, and every century. They happened once when the church was established. You don’t get reborn every decade of your life; you get born once, and then you grow on the basis of that foundation.
So we have these signs and miracles of the apostles, and the result is a division. It is not that everybody believed, but …
Acts 14:4-6
Acts 14:4-6
4 But the multitude of the city was divided: part sided with the Jews, and part with the apostles. 5 And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone them, 6 they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region.
They had accomplished their mission. They had stayed sufficiently to teach the new body of believers there, and then they left and fled to the smaller towns.
Acts 14:7
Acts 14:7
7 And they were preaching the gospel there.
Expansion: Opposition and Acceptance. Acts 14:12-28
Expansion: Opposition and Acceptance. Acts 14:12-28
Denis Prager made the observation that of all the things that he talks about and opinions that he expresses on his shows and in his programming, the one thing that consistently generates the most significant amount of hate mail and angry responses and hostility is when he talks about the fact that this nation was founded on biblical principles and that the founders had their thinking shaped by the Bible.
Because, as he pointed out, the school systems in this country, both private and public, all the way up to higher education, continuously teach the Founding Fathers as if they were just a bunch of 20th-century secularists and not products of a strong 18th-century theistic worldview, most of which was biblically based. That doesn’t mean that they were biblical exegetes, great theologians, or always the most orthodox theologians, but they thought with a biblical, theistic worldview. They looked at the world as that which a personal, infinite creator created, that there were absolutes of right and wrong that dictated all areas of behavior, and they believed that the fundamental problem of the human race was that it was corrupted by sin.
Their understanding varied from person to person, but they all shared a general worldview, just as almost everybody in our country today shares a relativistic worldview. Even most Christians have a relativistic worldview because of the culture they grew up in. It has influenced them through various media, including television, radio, movies, peers, and professors.
When we as believers take a stand for the truth and we recognize that more and more people that are in this room and people out there who are live-streaming have a level of knowledge of history, of the Bible, of theology that puts us probably … and this is not being said out of pride or arrogance, it is a condemnation of the rest of the culture. This is not elevating us because we don’t think that when we stack up against many Christians in previous generations, we are that much more knowledgeable. However, when we are compared to our generation, they are probably less than 1/1000th of a percentile range in terms of our knowledge and understanding of these things.
It’s not because we know it so well. It is because the education system, both in the church and in the culture, has deteriorated so drastically over the last thirty or forty years that people who think they know a lot are dumber than wood stumps. They simply don’t know; they don’t take the time to find out. They haven’t been educated; the education they have is misinforming them terribly. And so, we are operating on many erroneous ideas, especially when it comes to history and the Bible, particularly when people think they know the Bible because they watch shows on the History Channel or TikTok Videos.
So whenever we speak the truth we are going to face opposition, because the real issue isn’t knowledge, it isn’t education, it isn’t culture, it isn’t economics; it is a spiritual issue, and it is the same for every single individual, and all of these other collateral factors are irrelevant as far as God is concerned. Because the teaching of the Scripture is that, because of Adam’s sin, we are all corrupt in every area of our being, and if we reject God, then it just sets up an entire scenario of self-destruction in terms of our life and our mentality.
The hope is that if we are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and study the Word, we can have a tremendous, complete, and rich life that is available to us as part of God’s grace package. That is where the trajectory of the passage we are studying in Acts 14 ends up.
So we see what happens as Paul goes to this town called Lystra. A miracle takes place, and this miracle sets up a validation and a hearing for the message of the apostle Paul, the message of the gospel. As a result of his message, there will be a response that sets in from the people that is entirely erroneous, but is illustrative of the reaction we get from many unbelievers. They want to reinterpret whatever is said, whatever the Bible says, in terms of their framework and their previous understanding. Then, once their errors are pointed out to them, some respond, and some enter into a hostile reaction. That tells the story of what happens in Lystra.
Acts 14:8-13
Acts 14:8-13
8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked. 11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
In our text, Lystra was a town inhabited mainly by the remnants of a small Anatolian tribe. The town was founded by Caesar Augustus in 26 BC, and he gave it a colony status in 6 BC. During that time, a number of retired Roman army veterans moved to this area. They assimilated into the town, so there wasn’t a lot of Roman influence on the culture in this area. However, the language of Latin did have an impact, and there are a number of inscriptions that have also survived that were written in Latin. It was a somewhat rural, rustic market town in a backward area in central Turkey. We don’t know why Augustus established this colony or why it was important. They did have a couple of deities in the Greek pantheon: Zeus, who was the counterpart to Jupiter in the Roman pantheon, and El in the Canaanite pantheon. The messenger of the gods was Hermes, Mercury in the Roman pantheon, and they were the patron deities in this area. That played a role in what happened in Lystra.
Some statues have been discovered from this era in this region. One has an inscription of a dedication to Zeus, and another to a dedication to Hermes. There was a statue of Zeus outside the gates, which sheds a little light on Acts 14:13, which talks about the priests of Zeus.
The temple was in front of their city. This shows us that what Luke records here about the people in Lystra and the culture of Lystra fits with everything discovered archaeologically. Once again, we see that nothing in the Bible gets contradicted by empirical evidence that survives. Nothing has ever been discovered in archaeology that contradicts the Bible. Archeology can’t prove the Bible to be true but archeology can provide evidence of what the people were like, what these towns, villages and empires were like, and what we learn from that is that everything that we find the Bible saying about a time period, a location or a culture fits perfectly with what we discover in terms of the remnants of cultures and those societies.
In Ovid‘s Metamorphoses 8.626ff there is a legend that Zeus and Hermes had visited the towns and villages of the region in human form, but did not receive any hospitality. When they came to the home of the poor and elderly Baucis and Philemon they were invited in, the couple gave them the last of their food and the best comfort they could. As Baucis prepared the meal, there was plenty of food and the wine kept “welling up of itself.” The couple became greatly afraid because of the miracle, so the gods revealed themselves and told them that they were the only people to welcome them; they would be blessed while the whole region was destroyed. The couple asked only to be priests in the temple of Zeus and that they die at the same time, so that neither had to see the tomb of the other.
Paul spoke Greek, but the crowd spoke in the Lycaonian language. As a result, Paul and Barnabas do not know what is going on!
The crowd swells and preparations for sacrifices are made by the Priest of Zeus. The Temple of Zeus was just outside, the city, perhaps on the main road into the city. Bulls and wreaths are brought for the sacrifice where the wreaths were flowery decorations for the bulls.
Notice that in this altar relief, pigs are shown. Pigs were sacrifices to Ares / Mars, so it is unlikely a pig was in this procession for Zeus and Hermes
If there is any connection between this story and the legend from Ovid mentioned above, then it is quite likely that the crowd was not going to allow Zeus to visit them again without proper worship.
We see that in Lystra there was this certain man “who had no strength in his feet, lame from his mother’s womb, who had never walked.”
Acts 14:18
Acts 14:18
18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.
Everybody in this small town knows who he is, and that he has a significant constitutional defect since birth.
You may want to compare this with what occurs in John Chapter 5, by the pool of Siloam where Christ heals the man lame for 38 years - but does so on the Sabbath.
Or John Chapter 9, where Jesus heals the man blind since birth - again on the Sabbath.
; Acts 3. There is a parallel here between the miracle that is performed and the miracle Peter performs, in Acts 3, which shows an identification of the two in terms of their role and function in God’s plan. Again, it is an aspect of God’s validation of the ministry of Paul and Peter. This man has always had this problem, and so he listens to Paul and responds to his message.
8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked.
Note the phrase “lame from his mother’s womb.” This is the Greek phrase ἐκ κοιλίας EK KOLIAS and it means “from the womb.” There are some folks in terms of the abortion debate who want to identify this as “inside the womb.” But that is not what this means. Inside the womb we have no idea whether he is a cripple or not because he is still developing. “From the womb” means from the time of birth. It is not talking about a time period before birth. This is a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase is grammatically composed of two elements. There is a preposition and there is a noun. Sometimes there is an article with the noun, and sometimes not. But whatever the language, a prepositional phrase is the same; it is a preposition plus a noun object of the preposition. So, in this prepositional phrase, whether we are talking about the Greek side of it or the Hebrew side of it, it means “from birth.”
Now it is important to understand that in Hebrew, there is both a verb and a noun for the word “conception” [הָרָה—HARAH]. The debate we have today is whether life begins at conception or at birth. What are the parameters of life? What does the Bible say about the parameters of life and death? When does life begin? Does it begin at conception, or does it begin at birth?
We discover in the Old Testament that there is a verb and a noun for conception. The reason that is important is that if you were a Jew in the Old Testament period and you wanted to say that life begins from conception, you had the vocabulary to say that literally. You could say “from,” and use the noun form for conception. However, that is never used in the Old Testament. Instead, what you have is the phrase me beten, from the preposition men—the preposition for “from,” for derivation, source—and the word for the womb, beten. They have to do this because in Hebrew, there was a verb for birth, yalad. However, a prepositional phrase requires a noun to be the object of the preposition, not a verb. So, you have to have a noun form of the verb in order to have a prepositional phrase, “from birth.”
But in Hebrew, there is no noun for birth; it doesn’t exist. So, what you have to do is have a word substitution. You use an idiomatic phrase, or what is called a circumlocution—circum = go around; locution = a statement word (from the Greek word logos). So if you can’t say something one way, you have to go around and invent another way of saying something. It is sort of like the euphemism when somebody dies and you say they passed away. Since in Hebrew they didn’t have a noun for the concept of birth, they used another expression and the phrase beten. Again and again and again, whether talking about Job or Jeremiah (when God called Jeremiah from the mother’s womb) it is from birth. If they wanted to say from conception, they had a perfectly good noun for conception to use. They never used it.
The question is: If full life begins at conception, then why do we have zero examples in the Scripture of this? Usually, the translators translate it as in the NKJV “from the womb,” which is just a literal translation of an idiom. In one example in Luke, chapter one in the NIV, someone correctly translated the phrase about John the Baptist, which he would be called “from birth.” The phrase in the Greek is “from the womb,” but they understood that it meant “from birth.”
All of this is basic knowledge and is supported in the lexicons. But for some reason, because of the political antagonism generated by the Roe v. Wade decision, it is like nobody really wants to pay attention to the data. They want to go off and deal with other issues. But just because human life doesn’t begin at birth, it doesn’t validate abortion. This is another fallacy that occurs in this debate, that if full life doesn’t begin at birth, then it is okay to perform an abortion.
An article in a Jewish encyclopedia details the Orthodox Jewish view. We believe this is the correct biblical view—the nascent life view is the correct term. This is the view that when the egg is fertilized in the womb, unless something unusual happens, the end result of that fertilization is going to be a fully ensouled human being at the time of birth.
Therefore, since God has brought this together and will eventually culminate in full human life, there must be extremely serious justification for interfering with that process. So, while it is not viewed as murder because it is not a full human life yet, neither is it viewed as a wise or justifiable decision to interfere with the normal process of gestation, because this is going to be a human being eventually. We don’t have the right to interfere unless it is going to cause a major health problem or threaten the life of the mother.
This was historically the Jewish view and a prominent one in the early church. In fact, it wasn’t until sometime later that there were some different views on how the soul is transmitted. There was in the third century a theologian by the name of Tertullian—the man who coined the term trinitos to describe the doctrine related to the three persons, one essence, of the Godhead—who believed the soul was corporeal, transmitted physically through copulation (Declared heresy in the Roman Catholic church by Thomas Aquinas). So, this whole idea that life begins at conception is based on this Traducian view of the transmission of the soul, which was viewed in the Roman Catholic church as heresy.
But that did not justify abortion. Somehow, in all of the debates and antagonism that we have had, we have gotten the idea that if the soul is not there, then it is okay to abort, and that is not true. Jews have never accepted it in the Old Testament or Christians in the New Testament unless it was to save the life of the mother.
By the way I heard Arnold Fruchtenbaum comment on the rabinical view, when asked when they believed the child hada a soul? was it at conception? at birth?
Acts 14:9
Acts 14:9
9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed,
Paul is watching him and has an understanding, probably because Paul, as an apostle, has the gift of prophecy and understands that this man has faith to be healed. The Greek word for healing is the word sozo, which is usually translated in theological contexts as salvation. But the broad use of the word sozo was to be made whole, healed, and delivered from life-threatening consequences. It is used in numerous healing passages in the Gospels where Jesus heals. He either uses the word iaomai, which is the more precise word for healing, or sozo. So it is not talking about the fact that he had faith to be saved, but contextually he had faith to be healed of his crippling position.
Acts 14:10
Acts 14:10
10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked.
Notice he immediately leaped up just like the man in Acts chapter three when Peter healed him on the temple's steps. The miracle not only involves a restoration of his ability to walk. All of those atrophied tendons and muscles and nerve endings and everything that goes into the operation of his feet suddenly work. God brings all of this together, and he doesn’t have to learn how to walk, take steps, or balance himself. In contrast to many of the so-called healings advertised today, this is a constitutional defect documented by the fact that everybody around him has known him all his life and knows that this is a problem that he has. It doesn’t occur in some large arena where nobody knows the person who has come forward.
There are a lot of these so-called healing services where people will come and they have bad backs, bad knees, bad hips, and all this other stuff, and the healing part is put off until the end of the service. But they are all told to come up to the front to be put up on the stage for the healing that will occur later on. They get tired, so the little gimmick the faith-healers use is that they have wheelchairs there so that people can sit in the wheelchairs. Then it looks to the audience as if this person can’t walk because they’re in a wheelchair. They are rolled out on the stage (they could walk before, and they can walk afterwards) and they are told to get up and walk. Everybody cheers because they have just been “healed.” Well, that wasn’t the problem to begin with.
A little caveat here: God still performs miracles. He does it directly in the lives of people here and there. So, we are totally justified in praying for healing. God intervenes many times, but many times He does not. And if we direct our attention to a verse at the end of the chapter, verse 22
Acts 14:22
Acts 14:22
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
They are already believers. They are already saved, so entering the kingdom is not a synonym for getting saved. It has to do with entering the fullness of life that God has for us.
How do we experience the fullness of life? We grow through testing, adversity, and going through hard times. And God knows just exactly what is needed for us. We have limitations in life; we have diseases, financial catastrophes, all kinds of things. How we handle that based on doctrine prepares us in terms of spiritual maturity for our future destiny in the kingdom of God. And that is why God doesn’t remove these things. That is why when we say, “Lord, I have this terrible situation, please remove it,” and God says just like He did to Paul, “No, you need to learn humility, to trust me, and the only way you are going to do that is if you go through this circumstance; I am not going to take it away from you.” Without that adversity, we don’t get those opportunities to grow spiritually.
The man heard Paul speaking and Paul “said with a loud voice, ‘Stand upright on your feet.’” A comment about this says there are two important things about this. First, Paul observes him intently with a stare, and second, with a loud voice. These were often two elements found in Greco-Roman myths about the coming of the gods, when the gods would become human beings and interfere with human history. And these details suggest, the comment says, in part, why the crowd reacted as it did in identifying Paul and Barnabas as incarnations of Zeus and Hermes.
Acts 14:11
Acts 14:11
11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”
There is a response that sets in here. This is an excellent illustration of the principle in Romans 1:18-23. Especially when teaching children or grandchildren Scripture, we have these abstract principles that we find throughout the epistles of the New Testament. However, real-time stories and events in the Old Testament and New Testament often illustrate abstract principles. This is an excellent illustration of how people react to the truth of God’s Word.
Romans 1:18-19
Romans 1:18-19
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
So, what is introduced here is that when people reject God's revelation through nature, through His creation, they choose ungodliness. They either choose to know something more about whoever the creator is or they worship the creation. That is the thrust of this whole passage.
Whenever Paul encounters unbelievers, he always brings the gospel to the issue of whether or not you are worshipping the creator or the creature. With the Jews that he addressed in Antioch, he understands that they are worshipping the creator, but they have a completely flawed view of the creator and have confused things. But he approaches them from the common background of accepting the truth of the Old Testament.
With the Gentiles, as we will see, he starts with creation. Paul often expressed the gospel by starting with creation, because creation matters. Creation is not a secondary doctrine that is irrelevant to the gospel. If you don’t have the correct view of the creator God of Genesis 1-3, you don’t have a correct view of sin. You can’t completely understand the gospel. Paul always starts there. If creation doesn’t matter, why does Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cover creation when he is dealing with Gentiles?
This is a problem for us today in communicating the gospel because a lot of people are so brainwashed by Darwinian evolution that they don’t have an accurate view of God at all. Romans 1:18 tells us that everybody knows about God, and Romans 1:19 says, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”
There is an unregenerate soul in the unbeliever, a depraved, corrupt soul governed by sin, and inside of that there is internal knowledge of the creator God. That is true for everybody no matter how agnostic or atheistic they are.
The Scripture says there is a knowledge of God manifest in them and God has shown it to them. But as the last phrase in Romans 1:18 says, they are suppressing that truth in unrighteousness.
This is operation truth suppression. What they have is a worldview, a mentality that is all informed by their pagan ideas, and as long as they are giving that priority, as soon as they hear the truth, they immediately reshape it and redefine it, transform it, gobble it up, and re-articulate it in terms of their worldview. This is an instantaneous action of their soul. They hate the truth, suppress it, twist it, and distort it; that is how it comes out.
We see a perfect example of it here in Acts 14. As soon as they saw this man get up and walk, they began chatting to themselves in their ancient language, which Paul and Barnabas did not understand. All they heard was a lot of excited chatter and talking. Instead of saying Paul and Barnabas were coming here to tell us about the truth, they immediately say this is Zeus and this is Hermes. They instantly reshape what is happening and reinterpret everything within their false presuppositions. Pagan, non-biblical thinking is just eating up the truth instantly and reshaping it. That is how truth suppression operates.
Paul says, Romans 1:20
Romans 1:20
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
It is clear to them that they have just been suppressing it forever. They are without excuse, i.e., there is enough information given in creation for them to know that God is there so that they can be held accountable for that.
The word for “clearly seen” is καθοράω—KATHORAO, meaning to see or perceive something thoroughly. They have a complete and thorough understanding; there is no excuse for them whatsoever. It is understood (νοέω--NOEO), they know God exists somewhere in their soul.
Romans 1:21
Romans 1:21
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
They come to know God (γινώσκω-GINOSKO) but they don’t glorify Him as God. Their souls become empty and futile and worthless through the use of this word ματαιος--MATAIOS, meaning just to be rendered empty or null and void. Their opinions, their reasoning, everything becomes distorted because of negative volition, their hostility to God, which means their hearts are darkened. They are called foolish hearts, which indicates senselessness. It doesn’t matter how many degrees they have or how educated. Because they rejected God they became foolish.
Romans 1:22
Romans 1:22
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
This is what happens here in Lystra. We see how they redefine everything.
Acts 14:12-14
Acts 14:12-14
12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out
They are just horrified.
End of 5/11/2025
End of 5/11/2025
Sunday, May 18, 2025
Sunday, May 18, 2025
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Pagan
Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: The Gospel for Pagan
We are dealing with the issue of Paul’s gospel presentation to the Pagan city of Lystra.
Let’s drop back into the text to see what is happening.
Acts 14:8-13
Acts 14:8-13
8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked. 11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
Acts 14:14
Acts 14:14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out
This is where we get to their presentation of the gospel.
Acts 14:15
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
We often say this but what we mean is stop. The implication here is: Stop doing these things.
“… We are also men of the same nature as you …”
The Greek word is ὁμοιοπαθής-HOMOIPATHES, which indicates the same emotions, the same makeup, the same human beings—We are not gods.
“… and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things …”
Gospel is [εὐαγγελίζω, the good news] Turn is the Greek word ἐπιστρέφω, a synonym for metanoeo, and it means to turn. It is simply saying to quit believing the things you have been believing and turn toward God; quite believing the empty things and turn to the living God.
“… to a living God …”
He is a living God. He talks about Jesus, who was raised from the dead. [εὐαγγελίζω, the good news]
“… WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.”
When we say that today we hear, what about evolution? People get into a debate right away. Paul’s model for evangelism must be flawed. No. If you can’t get God right, you can’t get the gospel right. We have to ensure that the person isn’t just thinking about their view of God and sin. We have to clarify and define all the terms so that they are understood. Most people in our culture today don’t have a clue who God is. They have a lot of misconceptions because they have heard a lot of Christians who are legalistic, extremist in different ways, and they don’t know much about the Scriptures. It is incredible that the vast number of pastors teaching the Word today have had no training, and the many who do have training are then swayed away from the truth through academic arrogance. So, there are very few who really teach the truth. But there are at least “seven thousand” who haven’t bowed the knee. They are out there, but they are just rejected or ignored.
Common Grace: Repentance and Turning to God. Acts 14:12-28
Common Grace: Repentance and Turning to God. Acts 14:12-28
Paul has faced considerable hostility and antagonism, and he possesses the spiritual courage that informs his moral courage, enabling him to stay the course despite threats, anger, resentment, and conspiracies that often culminate in physical violence and attacks. This happens in Lystra before they leave and head to Derby.
In this section, we examine a few verses that focus on his message in Lystra, as well as two key doctrines: common grace and aspects related to repentance and turning, including the role of repentance in salvation.
At the end of his ministry in Derbe, Paul is going to reverse course. That demonstrates the courage of the apostle Paul, as he was essentially driven out of each of these locations. Now he is going to go back because of his commitment to the ministry that the Lord Jesus Christ has given him, where people are there who wish to take his life, to make sure that these groups of believers are well-founded and well-led.
We see that this is another example of truth suppression. The response of the unbeliever sitting on negative volition, hostility toward God, is that when he hears the truth, he reacts against it. The position of the unbeliever, having rejected the evidence of God in the heavens (as articulated in Romans 1:18-19, as we reviewed it last week) is that he is suppressing the truth.
Romans 1:18-19
Romans 1:18-19
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
What happens in the psychology of truth suppression is that, before long, people get to the point where they are believing the lie so profoundly that they can’t think in terms of truth or objectivity anymore. Two things happen. One is that they no longer understand the truth. It doesn’t make sense to them anymore because they have completely reversed the polarities in their thinking so that, as the prophets of the Old Testament say, they are now calling bad good and calling good bad. And once a culture as a whole gets so caught up in a psychosis of rejection of Scripture, then you have a culture that is operating on pure fantasy. They have made up their own reality. They start with their own idea of how the human race came into existence; they hate the idea that God created the human race in the image of God. They hate God and they want Him out of the picture; they are suppressing and rejecting that truth, so they have to come up with some way to explain how we got here.
In the ancient world, they had creation myths, and in the modern world, we call it science, but evolution is just another creation myth. And it flies entirely in the face of what the Bible says in terms of who man is and how man got here. Either the Bible is right completely and totally, which means that God created recently (maybe 5-6000 years ago), and He made everything, including the human race, in six consecutive 24-hour days, and He created a perfect world for the habitation of the human race. And the human race was created as a representation of God to rule over creation, not for creation to rule over them. As Christians, we should call it creation, not nature. Nature implies some autonomous entity that exists as a result of happenstance, whereas creation makes it clear that it has a creator and that that creator designed the creation to be exactly what it is. And man was set over that creation and is unique as a living being because mankind is in the image and likeness of God. He is to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and the beasts of the field. He, therefore, is given responsibility to watch over and to care for God’s creation, not to destroy it.
There is a biblically correct view of how man is to be a steward of creation. In contrast, ninety-nine per cent of what we get out of the so-called green movement is politically motivated from pagan mythology where creation is worshipped over the creator, because the creation—what they refer to as nature—is autonomous, the product of an evolutionary process that is not the creation of God, and therefore nature must be maintained. If it is destroyed, then they blame the human race because, in the view of the ecological movement's mythology, it is mankind that is the malignant disease on the planet, and it would be better for humanity to be removed.
Many people don’t understand the distinction between a biblical view of creation and responsible stewardship, and what is often referred to as environmentalism. However, many aspects of environmentalism are borrowed concepts from Judeo-Christianity. There are numerous Mosaic Laws in the Scripture related to the proper and responsible stewardship of creation. This has always been part of the Judeo-Christian ethic. However, in paganism, creation is deified, so that the human race now serves creation, rather than overseeing and ruling over it. This is all part of truth suppression, where the unbeliever redefines everything from A to Z in the creation and ends up worshipping the creature rather than the creator.
The Scripture is clear, both in Old and New Testament passages, that there is enough evidence in the universe, in the heavens and on the earth, of the order and purpose and structure of everything in creation, that there is a creator; enough evidence to make man accountable so that, as Romans chapter one puts it, “they are without excuse.” So that when they stand at the end of time before the great white throne judgment, they will be held accountable for having rejected God.
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
This really forms a backdrop to Paul’s message in Acts 14. Initially, they performed a miracle on a man who was born a cripple. It was such a profound miracle that all of the people in Lystra knew about it, and they made this assumption from their pagan, non-biblical worldview that these must be the gods of their pantheon, the Greek gods Zeus and Mercury.
Acts 14:12-13
Acts 14:12-13
12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
As soon as Paul and Barnabas catch on and realize what is going on, they have a typical Jewish response to something that is blasphemous, and they begin to tear their robes.
Acts 14:14
Acts 14:14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out
There was an immediate reaction, and they immediately tried to stop what was going on.
Paul begins to challenge them, and he gives a succinct message to them. Notice the difference between this message and the message he gave in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. When he started in Acts chapter thirteen in Pisidian Antioch, he started with the Old Testament.
Acts 13:16-17
Acts 13:16-17
16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it.
By “our fathers,” Paul means the patriarchs of Israel. That started in Genesis chapter twelve. Because he recognizes that his audience is scripturally informed and educated, they are familiar with the Old Testament. So he doesn’t have to define God for them. They know who God is because they are familiar with the Old Testament. But this is a different group in Acts chapter fourteen; they are pagans. When they hear the word “God,” they think of the gods of the Greek pantheon, which are just grandiose images of human beings. The Bible says that God created man in His image, but in paganism, the human race returns the favor and creates the gods in their image.
So, Paul has to address this crowd differently from the other Jewish crowd. This is a principle that we have to learn. Not everybody we witness to is going to be the same. They will have different backgrounds and understandings, and what we need to do sometimes is talk to them, not just use vocabulary familiar to us, because they may not have a clue what we are talking about. When we talk about God, we have no idea what they are hearing and what they are listening to. When we talk about Jesus, they may have no idea who Jesus is.
Acts 14:15
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
What Paul says to these men, as unsaved, untaught, scripturally ignorant Greeks, is that they should turn from these useless things to the living God. The emphasis is on the living God. The Lord whom we worship is the Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead. He is a living God, the source of life. Notice he is teaching by way of contrast.
Paul isn’t being politically correct here. He says, “I want you to turn from these useless things.” He would immediately be thrown out of America because he is too negative, too critical. How arrogant can he be to call their religion useless?!! But if you are a biblically-based thinker, you have to recognize that any religious system other than biblical Christianity is futile; it is not going to provide anything for you. Paul immediately brings in creation, and he is paraphrasing here from Exodus 20:11
Exodus 20:11
Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Paul doesn’t even explain the gospel here, does he? The closest he gets is that you have to turn away from these useless things to the living God. He will eventually develop it, but not here.
It is important to understand the terminology here. The word is “turn.” The Greek word is ἐπιστρέφω—EPISTREPHO . It means simply, to turn, to return, or to turn back. It is the word used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word shub, the word used in Deuteronomy 30:2.
Deuteronomy 30:2
Deuteronomy 30:2
2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul,
What is interesting is that we tend to equate this word as if it were a perfect synonym for another word that is heavily loaded theologically, and that is the word “repent.” Repent is not an exact synonym to turn. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for “repent,” NACHAM, is never translated by epistrepho in the LXX; it is always translated by the word group metanoeo.
The basic meaning given from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology for metanoia means change of mind, repentance, or conversion. The verb metanoeo means to change one’s mind. Some would argue that it means having remorse or regret. There is a problem with that. Sometimes we experience remorse or regret, but sometimes when we change our mind about something, it is not accompanied by any particular emotion. The word “remorse” is a challenging term because, in translations across the board, there are people who want to translate “confess sin” as “feel sorry for sin” or “have remorse for sin.” It is taking a secondary feature, emotion, and making it a primary part of the word's meaning. The primary part of the meaning of this word is to change your mind: META is the Greek preposition, which means “after”; NOIEO has to do with thinking, the mind, and so it is an afterthought. You have done one thing, you have second thoughts, and so you change your mind, and you go in another direction.
But there is an element of regret there, and that may accompany the sense of the term. Metanoeo does seem to have, at times, an emotive idea. But that is a different idea than the word “turn” or shub.
The question that arises for people is: Do we need to repent of our sins in order to be saved? This is the answer of many Calvinists or many legalists who say: “Oh, you haven’t repented of your sins.” Well, which sins? The ones I have committed or the ones I haven’t committed yet? That is just a facetious question that needs to be asked. What sins am I repenting of? The past ones or the future ones? And how much should I repent?
Here’s another thing to think about. If you think repentance is necessary to be saved, then the Gospel of John, written specifically so people could be saved (John 20:31),
31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
uses the word “believe” over 95 times, but it never uses the term “repent.” If repentance is necessary for salvation, then either repentance doesn’t mean what people think it means, or you can’t get saved reading the Gospel of John. Those are the only basic conclusions that you can go with.
New Testament thought is shaped by Old Testament thought. This can be demonstrated simply by the fact that when John the Baptist and Jesus showed up on the scene in Israel, the message was: “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.” The word used was metanoeo. So, when preaching “repent” to the people, they had to know what it meant. Where did they get the idea? They got it from the Old Testament, so they already knew what repent meant. They were not like modern Christians who have had two thousand years of bad theology to confuse them over the meaning. Therefore, we must look to the Old Testament to understand the meaning of this word. We have one very clear passage that gives us a good understanding of what the word “repent” means.
Jeremiah 8:6
Jeremiah 8:6
6 I listened and heard, But they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’ Everyone turned to his own course, As the horse rushes into the battle.
So this is how they would repent of their wickedness—“Saying, ‘What have I done?’” The word there for “repent” is נִחָם֙--NICHAM, and to repent means to second-guess what you’ve done. It doesn’t necessarily imply remorse. It may imply regret. Regret does not have to be a heavily emotive term. It can be: “I’ve made a bad decision; now I have to straighten it out.” That gives us the idea. What we have there is that the idea of repent means, 'What have I done?' It is regret; it is changing the mind.
Repent has a narrower meaning. You can repent in the sense of just being sorry for your sins, or sorry that you were caught. But you have to turn. Turning is a volitional concept that also includes the idea of changing your mind. The turning goes beyond repentance; it is the next step.
On a logical timeline, the first thing that must happen when a person hears the gospel is for them to change their mind. They repent. But that is not enough. Perhaps you simply have a greater sense of regret. This is if it is addressed to an audience of unbelievers. If it is addressed to an audience of believers, it doesn’t mean the same thing as when you address unbelievers. For believers, it essentially means confessing one's sins. You need to admit you’re wrong, acknowledge your sins, and then reestablish your fellowship. However, with an unbeliever, it means they need to change their mind about those false gods or false systems of thought they have held, and then make the mental shift from where they were to where they need to be, which is logically followed by belief.
If someone says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,” then when you believe, what have you done? You have, without stating it, changed your mind (METANOEO), turned, and believed. It summarizes the whole process. Some people say you have to repent, but repentance isn’t mentioned everywhere. It is not mentioned here; Paul merely says to turn. However, to turn, it presupposes a change of mind. These terms are not precise equivalents, but they effectively describe statements about what happens before faith. Faith is simply believing in Jesus Christ: that He is the one who died on the cross for your sins.
Acts 14:16
Acts 14:16
16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways.
This is the doctrine of common grace, basically. In the ancient world God worked only through the Gentiles from the time of the creation of Adam until the call of Abram in Genesis 21:1. But because of the rejection of God on the part of the human race, especially as it was exhibited at the tower of Babel, God turned away from the Gentiles and focused on blessing the entire human race through the descendants of Abraham—specifically Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What Paul is describing here is that in bygone generations, i.e., back at the time of Genesis 12, God allowed the nations to follow their own ways.
Acts 14:17
Acts 14:17
17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
He provided for all of the Gentile nations. This introduces the concept of common grace.
Notice Romans 1:18 and Psalm 19:1-3
Romans 1:18
Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Psalm 19:1-3
Psalm 19:1-3
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard.
Common grace refers to God's extension of blessings to all human beings through His general providence, encompassing His oversight of history and the general benefits He provides for all individuals in their daily lives.
Matthew 5:45
Matthew 5:45
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Psalm 145:8
Psalm 145:8
8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy. 9 The Lord is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.
Romans 2:4
Romans 2:4
4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
So the goodness of God is designed to lead people to that point where they can change their minds about God.
In terms of grace, there are general blessings to all mankind. There are blessings related to God’s sovereign plan. God had a sovereign plan related to the British Empire in the 19th century. As the British Empire sent its soldiers to establish colonies and conquer nations and peoples, it always accompanied them with missionaries who took the gospel to numerous places around the world. That was part of God’s general blessings to all of mankind. It doesn’t mean that God was putting His stamp of approval on everything that the British Empire did, but God, in His general common grace, used that to bring the gospel to millions of people.
We have blessing by association. We have generations of Americans who are blessed by their association with the founding fathers who established a just and righteous form of government, and one that, while not perfect, contained within itself means of correction so that it could continue, if the Constitution is followed, to provide liberty and freedom to all.
There are blessings related to the general quality of life that apply to both believers and unbelievers. It has nothing to do with what they have done. And God also restrains evil.
2 Thessalonians 2:7
2 Thessalonians 2:7
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
That is a reference to the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit during this age.
This is common grace, and this is what Paul began with.
Acts 14:18-19
Acts 14:18-19
18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them. 19 Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.
Notice how the crowd turns on a dime. One minute they want to worship them as gods, the next minute they are stoning them. That is a perfect picture of truth suppression. They didn’t fit with that pagan idea. They tried to absorb and redefine what they were teaching. And when Paul and Barnabas said no, what was the pagan response? They went from adoring them to hating them, and they began to stone them.
The Greek word translated “supposing” is νομίζω—NOMIZO, which usually means to suppose something that is not true; a false assumption. Paul wasn’t dead. If he were Luke would have said he was dead.
Acts 14:20
Acts 14:20
20 However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
In vv. 21 to the end of the chapter we have a summation of what they did.
Acts 14:21
Acts 14:21
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch,
A disciple is not equivalent to a believer. A lot of believers are not disciples. A disciple is somebody who is a student of Jesus. There are a lot of people who are just believers. They are going to be saved but they haven’t made a decision in their soul to be a student of the Word of God. So they made disciples and then returned back to all of those places that ran them out of town,
Acts 14:22
Acts 14:22
Acts 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples …”
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
They did that by teaching them the Word of God again.
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
Don’t give up. Just because you are saved, that is not the end game. The ultimate goal is to achieve spiritual maturity, so that you are prepared to go and rule and reign with Jesus Christ in His kingdom.
Who is Paul talking to here? He is talking to disciples, those who have already been saved. They want to press on to spiritual maturity. So when he is telling them about entering the kingdom, entering the kingdom doesn’t mean getting saved. They are already saved. Entering the kingdom is about the future role and responsibility of ruling and reigning with Christ in the millennial kingdom. That only comes through going through Tribulations. All believers are heirs of God, but only those who suffer with Christ will be joint heirs of Christ and will rule and reign with Him in eternity. This is the second category. Paul is encouraging them to press on in the adversities of life, stick with their beliefs in Christianity and the Word of God, so that they’re prepared for their future in the kingdom of God.
Acts 14:23-26
Acts 14:23-26
23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. 24 And after they had passed through Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. 25 Now when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 26 From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had completed.
What About Those Goy? Acts 15:1-4; Gal 2:1-10
What About Those Goy? Acts 15:1-4; Gal 2:1-10
Concluding Acts chapter fourteen.
Acts 14:21-22
Acts 14:21-22
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
Several key points need to be highlighted here to help us understand the role and purpose of pastoral ministry. We have the phrase “preached the gospel” here. That needs to be clarified. Two participles are translated with the English “ing” in verse 22—“strengthening” and “encouraging/exhorting”. What does it mean to strengthen and exhort, and how does that relate to verse 21, because as we look at these two verses, they are one sentence. The participles “strengthening” and “exhorting” modify the main verb, which is “they returned.” Therefore, we must be careful to exegete this and evaluate the grammar, as it helps reveal what they are doing more clearly than what is apparent on the surface in the English text.
First of all they “preached the gospel,” and once again we have the familiar word that has come over into the English as “evangelize” or the noun “evangelism.” It is the word euangelizo, and it is an aorist middle participle here. That is important because grammatically participles give their time sense, if it is an adverbial participle like this one, from the main verb. The main verb, “returned,” is in the aorist tense. When you have an aorist participle with an aorist tense verb, or with any verb, the action of the participle comes before the action of the main verb. With a present tense participle, the action is at the same time as the main verb, and a future tense participle comes after the main verb. The English translation of “preached the gospel” implies a simultaneous action, using the temporal word “when.” This is accurate; it is a temporal participle. But an aorist participle precedes the action of the main verb, so it should be “after they had evangelized the city.” The best translation would be “after they had explained the gospel to the city.”
The following participle is the word for “making many disciples,” derived from μαθητεύω-MATHETEUO, which means to make a disciple or a student of someone, or, in a slightly more active sense, to teach or instruct someone. So they are doing two things here. First, they are evangelizing, and secondly, they are instructing those who have responded to the evangelism. This is the mission of the universal church. Jesus said to the disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. So, they are fulfilling that function of what is called the Great Commission.
Matthew 28:19-20
Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Then, in Matthew 28:19-20, it goes on to describe how the disciple-making process continues—by baptizing. That doesn’t mean they are saved by baptism, but in the early church, it was understood that if you trusted Christ as Savior, there was nothing that hindered you from receiving water baptism. It was assumed that you would be baptized immediately. It didn’t make you more saved or less saved, more sanctified or more spiritual. It was a powerful object lesson to illustrate the reality of positional truth. If people are saved and undergo water baptism, then they have the opportunity to be taught the significance of being baptized by the Holy Spirit. Water baptism symbolizes the believer's identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so that they are now raised to new life in Christ. And by having new life in Christ, as Paul explained in Romans chapter six, that old life of being a slave to the sin nature has been broken, and we are no longer under that tyrannical relationship where the sin nature is the only master.
So when Matthew 28 says we are to make disciples by baptizing, that is summarizing the whole evangelism operation—“and teaching,” which is what you do after salvation. Sadly, there are too many congregations where all the pastor does is evangelize. There is never anyone telling believers what to do after they are saved, and so we end up with a lot of spiritual bed babies who are just in a spiritual nursery, and no one seems to know how to get them out of the nursery.
So, what Luke is reminding everybody here is that they are doing what they were told to do. They are going out and sharing the gospel with everybody, and then they are teaching them. They then returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, even though there was going to be a lot of persecution, possibly, and maybe it would cost them their life. There were those who hated them and had already demonstrated that they were angry enough to kill Paul.
Then, verse 22, which in English appears disconnected. The first word, “strengthening,” is the Greek word ἐπιστηρίζω--EPISTERIZO, a participle here. Participles without an article modify the verb; they are adverbial participles. Here, it modifies the main verb, which is “returned.” So, they returned strengthening. How does strengthening relate to returning? Returning is a past tense verb, an aorist tense, and now we have a present tense participle. What did we see previously? Past tense comes before, present tense comes roughly at the same time, and future tense happens after. As they returned, they were strengthening the souls of the disciples. That is the main idea, and it has the idea of strengthening, supporting, and building up. They are teaching them the Word.
How do we know that? That is explained in the very next participle, “exhorting.” This again is a present active participle, but it should be understood this time as an instrumental participle. So, they returned, strengthening the disciples' souls by exhorting them. There shouldn’t be a comma there in English. How do you strengthen them? By challenging them with the Word. You are teaching them the Word and then challenging them to obey the Word and transform their thinking according to what the Word says.
They are exhorting them to continue in the faith. That involves a couple of things. First of all, the phrase ” here doesn’t mean to continue believing in Jesus. It is not to continue in faith but to continue in the faith. When there is the article in front of the noun for faith, it refers to the set body of beliefs, the entire body of doctrine that a person holds to.
They were challenging the believers to continue in the faith, i.e., to adhere to sound doctrine, to continue studying and understanding the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles, and to continue growing and maturing based on that established body of beliefs. They challenged them to continue because that threat, the temptation for believers, is to give up.
The word for “continue” is a form of the word meno, ἐμμένω—EMMENO, which the Lord Jesus uses in John 15 when He says, “Abide in me.” It is a word that is related to fellowship—continue in fellowship, continue walking with the Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. So they are challenged to continue in the faith.
And they are teaching, related to the kingdom of God, that we must go through many tribulations to enter the kingdom of God. This is interesting because there are people today who think that we are in some form of the kingdom of God. In Acts, the issue is repentance, for the kingdom will come. The kingdom is a literal, physical, geographical, and political kingdom on earth, headed by the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. When Jesus ascended, according to Revelation 3:22, He was seated—not on His throne, He is not the King yet—on His Father’s throne at the right hand of the Father, and according to Daniel chapter seven is waiting for the Ancient of Days to give Him the high sign to take the kingdom. He hasn’t become the King yet, and we have a lot of really sloppy language today where people talk about doing something for the kingdom and worshipping our King, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is not our King yet. He is not going to assume the crown and be crowned as King until the Second Coming.
What Paul is teaching here is the importance of challenging people to persevere in doctrine, to study the Word, and not give up in their study of the Word. And the teaching is summarized: “we must go through many tribulations to enter the kingdom of God.” Here, Paul is using a slightly different way than he has in other places. It is obviously not talking about salvation. Entering the kingdom for this passage implies preparing to serve in the kingdom.
Acts 14:23
Acts 14:23
23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Notice the last phrase, “in whom they had believed.” It is not as clear in English, but in Greek, the verb there is PISTEUO, and it is a pluperfect active. A perfect tense verb means completed action in the past, and it emphasizes the present results of a completed past action. The pluperfect refers to the past results of a completed past action. A perfect is the present result of a completed past action; the pluperfect intensifies that and talks about the past results of a completed past action. The point is that they had already completed their action of believing a long time before the events of vv. 22, 23, and it had results from that belief before vv. 22, 23. So their justification for salvation had occurred the first time Paul went through town.
Now he comes back and encourages them to stay the course, saying, “Through many tribulations you will enter the kingdom.” He is talking about the same thing as in Romans 8:17 in relation to inheritance: “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ if we suffer with Him.” Therefore, it is not being saved because the context indicates that they have already been saved. They are not getting saved again by going through tribulations; that would be a works salvation.
There are three terms in the New Testament for church leaders, for a pastor. One is the term “bishop” or “overseer.” That focuses on the leader in terms of his authority and his responsibilities. The term “elder” focuses on his maturity. The term “pastor-teacher” emphasizes his responsibility to feed the flock and to lead. These terms are used interchangeably in 1 Timothy, Titus, and Acts, and this gives us our understanding.
Acts 14:27
Acts 14:27
27 Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.
That last phrase is crucial for understanding the historical flow of events in Acts. Now the door is fully open to Gentiles. When the church first started in Acts 2, it was all Jewish. So, this phrase is a transitional statement to foreshadow the focus of the next chapter, which is the Jerusalem Council.
Acts 14:28
Acts 14:28
28 So they stayed there a long time with the disciples.
That is, those who had made themselves students or learners of the Scriptures.
Acts chapter fifteen comes at the end of the first missionary journey, and what we will see here is how, even during the apostolic period, when there was direct revelation from God to the apostles, a progressive understanding of doctrine still emerged among them. It is not that anything changes, but that they get greater clarity, especially on the gospel. The issue that comes to a head—it’s not the last time, nor is it the first time—is when the apostles and the elders meet together and confer in a more detailed manner on the issues related to the Gentiles coming into the church. This had already begun in Acts, chapter eleven. This is critical here because they have to define this. Paul has come back from his missionary journey when there has been this explosive outreach to Gentiles and this extremely strong and hostile, violent reaction from a certain percentage of the Jews in the synagogues.
Now it is becoming increasingly clear that the nature of this new movement, the church, will focus more and more on the Gentiles, and therefore, they must raise this question. What do we do with the Gentiles? They come in and do things and eat things that are offensive to the Jews, who didn’t think it was really spiritual according to the Mosaic Law. There were conflicts between a Pharisaic element in the church (by now there were a number of Pharisees who had trusted in Christ as savior) who still had a holdover of legalism from their days before they were Christian. They are going to come into conflict with the apostle Paul.
The first part of Acts 15 raises the problem. In verse 5, the phrase “some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed” makes it very clear that these individuals are believers. In their post-salvation spiritual life, they have become entangled in legalism. “… saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
There is a conference involving the apostles and the elders (a term referring to the pastors in the congregations of Jerusalem), during which a lengthy debate ensues. Verse 7 “After there had been much debate …” They really hashed this out, and it is a progress in understanding. God isn’t just dumping a revelation on them to handle the problem; they've to wrestle with the scripture they’ve been taught and come to a conclusion. This is another important passage for understanding the principles of decision-making and God’s will. The Holy Spirit is directing them, but not in a way that they can be consciously aware of it. He is the invisible hand that is unseen and unfelt, yet overseeing the entire process. And when they do make the right decision, we read that they say, “It seemed good to us,” two or three times. Notice they don’t say, “God revealed this to us.” After working through all the issues, they must apply doctrine from the wisdom stored in their own soul to this highly contentious and divisive issue. Then they must decide how to implement their decision among the congregations.
Acts 15:1
Acts 15:1
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
These aren’t leaders. This is not a deputation sent from Jerusalem to Antioch; it is just some men with their own theological agenda.
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
This is reiterated in verse 5: “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.’” This is the first time they are identified as Pharisees. They were believers, but they were coming out of a legalistic background. After the resurrection, a large number of Pharisees responded to the gospel, some of whom held on to the legalistic background.
What we should recognize here is that we look at this through specific theological lenses. We need to eliminate that and adopt a different perspective on this.
Think of this as if we were an extremely patriotic first-century Jew. What had happened in your history? Approximately 320 BC, after Alexander had conquered most of the Middle East, the Greek empire was divided among his generals. For the next 200 years or so, there was a prolonged period of conflict between the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. And who was in between? Israel, which sits on most of the major trade routes that go through the Middle East. The Ptolemies controlled the area for the first part of that period, and then the Seleucids took over in the early 100s. They had a really evil Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes. He was a type or picture of the Antichrist from the Old Testament. He was so horrible and hated the Jews so much that he had a pig sacrificed on the altar in the temple and pig blood scattered on the inside of the holy of holies. He desecrated the temple, and the Syrians passed laws that made it illegal for Jews to circumcise their male children. It was a death penalty offence to hold copies of the Torah. Their goal was to obliterate Judaism completely.
The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. In second temple Judaism, circumcision also became a symbol of some being obedient to the Mosaic Law. We have a passage from one of the apocryphal books (with good historical value but not part of the Old Testament), 1 Maccabees 1:11-15, which gives us a sense of what was happening in Israel. People were wanting to give up their Judaism; they were losing their identity as Jews. This is what this passage in Maccabees shows:
1 Maccabees 1:11-15
1 Maccabees 1:11-15
11 In those days there appeared in Israel transgressors of the law who seduced many, saying: “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles all around us; since we separated from them, many evils have come upon us.” 12 The proposal was agreeable; 13 some from among the people promptly went to the king, and he authorized them to introduce the ordinances of the Gentiles. 14 Thereupon they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the Gentile custom. 15 They disguised their circumcision and abandoned the holy covenant; they allied themselves with the Gentiles and sold themselves to wrongdoing.
This created a huge controversy among the Jews there, and the culture is just polarized and imploding because of this large number of Jews who were compromising with Greek heathenism. And they “made themselves uncircumcised.” The issue was that circumcision was a patriotic act. It indicated that a Jew was devoted to the Abrahamic covenant, dedicated to the tradition and history of the fathers, and it was a sign that he wasn’t assimilating to the enemy, that he wasn’t becoming a cultural traitor. This is the background. When we enter the first century and observe the Pharisees and Sadducees' emphasis on the importance of circumcision, we need to cut them some slack, as they view this as a sign of their historical devotion to the covenants of Abraham and Moses. This was a significant thing for them, and so they are bringing all of that history to the table. It is not just a theological issue for many of them; it is a racial pride and historic pride that they must maintain by being circumcised.
We need to delve into some background, starting with Acts Chapter Eleven, and then examine Galatians Chapter Two. Basically, when we get into this, what we will discover is we have to fit this with these two other passages—Acts 11:30 and Galatians 2:10. There are basically four positions. One is that the visit of Galatians 2:10 is identified with Acts 11:30 and Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem. We believe that is the correct view. The second view is that Galatians 2:1-10 is actually referring to the trip to Jerusalem in Acts 15. Then we always have the position of the liberals. Liberals basically ignore facts; everything is made up by everybody else, whether you are a liberal theologically or a liberal politically. The third view is that none of this actually happened historically, so quit trying to figure out how all the parts fit together because there really weren’t any parts to begin with. Then there is the other view that we aren’t given enough detail, so quit trying to put it all together.
What we have to do is look at this because it helps us see the flow of how the apostles increased their understanding of the issues related to the purity of the gospel as faith alone, not faith plus circumcision, faith plus works, or faith plus anything else.
Sunday, May 25, 2025
Sunday, May 25, 2025
Grace vs Legalism. Acts 15:1-4, Galatians 2:1-10
Grace vs Legalism. Acts 15:1-4, Galatians 2:1-10
We have come to Acts 15
The focus of this chapter deals with grace and legalism. As much as we discuss grace and legalism, many still get confused over what grace and legalism mean. First of all, what they are not. Grace is not permissiveness; grace is not antinomianism; grace doesn’t mean that it is open to do that which is wrong, to justify it or rationalize it in some way simply because Christ already paid the penalty for sin, or that we can confess it later and be forgiven by God. There are still consequences to sin. Sin is still wrong. We are prohibited in Scripture from many things and commanded to do many things. Emphasizing the prohibitions and the commands in Scripture, especially those that apply to believers, is not legalism. There are a lot of Christians who have been heard over the years who have said if they were someone who emphasizes that Scripture says this is right and this is wrong, we should not do these things, we should do these, that they have been branded legalists. But that is not legalism. Legalism claims that God’s blessing is caused by whether we do or do not do certain things. That’s it in a nutshell. The issue in the Christian life is not about seeing what we can get away with, which is an abuse of grace.
On the other side, as spiritual infants often take advantage of God’s grace and abuse God’s grace. That is not right, but it is normal, just like children who take advantage of their parents’ absence or their parents’ lack of being observant and will disobey them. But that doesn’t make it right; that is typical of immaturity. Maturity recognizes that they might be able to get away with something that is wrong, but they are not going to do it simply because it is wrong. That is the difference between grace and legalism. Grace is that God does not take into account our failures as the basis for our salvation. He gives blessings to us, not on the basis of who we are or what we have done, but on His character and what Jesus Christ did on the cross. Grace means that God is not conditioning His free gift of salvation or the free gifts of other things to us on the basis of our personal righteousness.
On the other hand, God has given us all of our blessings at the instant of salvation, but if we don’t demonstrate the maturity and capacity to handle blessings, then God may not distribute those blessings. But the cause of receiving blessings from God is not whether or not we follow certain rituals, procedures, or a certain code, such as the Old Testament Law of Moses.
This is a significant issue that the early church had to resolve. It has already occurred, as we have seen, with what are we going to do with the Gentiles? In Acts chapter fifteen, the focus is on this. This is when one of the significant decision points comes up: how to handle this issue. It is usually referred to as the Jerusalem Council. Still, it is not a formal council such as church councils were in later centuries; it was more of an informal gathering of all of the leaders and pastors in the church at Jerusalem, where they could debate, discuss, and argue about these issues and then come to a conclusion. It is essential to understand that that was their way of making this decision. How do you resolve a theological conflict? Do you pray to God, meditate quietly in your closet, waiting for a little liver quiver for God to tell you what to do? Or do you exegete the Scriptures, analyze the Scriptures, hash it out, debate, and come to a conclusion that everyone can agree on?
So Paul returns from his second missionary journey. They went to Antioch first. In this chapter, we read that they are going to make their way down through Phoenicia, Sidon, and Tyre, encouraging the Gentile congregations with what happened on their first missionary journey.
Paul would have been saved in 35 AD, within two years of the death of Christ on the cross. A problem we have in putting this chronology together is in Galatians 2:1, where Paul says,
Galatians 2:1
Galatians 2:1
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
The question is: When did this trip to Jerusalem occur? He doesn’t say, "Well, for the second time or for the third time, I went to Jerusalem," so we don’t know. He doesn’t pin that to anything other than his conversion. It is fourteen years after his conversion.
The way chronology was counted in the ancient world is very different from how we count numbers today. We look at things and say that if a person has done something for three years, we either take it as a full three years or we take it as pretty much most of the first year, second year, and most of the third year. We are fairly literal in that. Whereas in the ancient world, the way they counted was different. For example, as we see in Kings, in both the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom at different times, the way they counted the years of the king’s reign was different. Many times, they used what was called the accession year method of counting. Let’s say the king becomes king on December 31st of 2012. Well, 2012 became the first year of his reign, even though he was on the throne for only one day. It is the first year. And let’s say he died on January 2nd, 2020. Well, 2020 would be the ninth year. Even though he only reigned for one day of that year, that would be counted as the ninth year. Any part of the year, no matter how tiny it might be, would be counted as a full year.
So when we look at the date of AD 35, Paul is saved, and he says fourteen years later, we count 35 as the first year and 47 as the last year. Therefore, some time in 47 would be the trip that he is talking about in Galatians 2:1. The Jerusalem Council is generally seen to be around 49; nobody wants to put it in 50. But if we put it any earlier, then it is not the visit he talks about in Galatians 2:1.
One problem is that many people who try to work out the chronologies take a 30 AD crucifixion date. So, their chronology doesn’t work for a 33 date.
Why is this important? The Bible claims to be writing true things about what happened, and even the chronological numbers are from the breathed-out Word of God. They are inspired and thus inerrant. If the Word of God took place in space-time history, then we ought to be able to resolve these conundrums satisfactorily based on the way in which people thought and used numbers at that particular time.
The basic issue was that there had been many Jews, in particular Jews with a Pharisee background, who had now trusted in Jesus as the Messiah. As they bring their Law-based, rigid legalism to Christianity, now that Gentiles want to be saved, they still think of Christianity as a Jewish-based and Mosaic Law-based development in the history of God’s relationship to Israel. They were teaching that unless a person was circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he couldn’t be saved. So this was the first of two types of legalism. First, there is salvation legalism, and this is the idea that a person must do something more than believe in Jesus and His death on the cross for salvation. In this case, it was to believe and be circumcised (males). Later, it was to have infant baptism, sprinkling, or some external form of dedication. Many different things have been added to be saved. Second, in spiritual life, legalism, they may believe that you are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, but if you are going to receive any of God’s blessings, then you have to follow a particular ritual, maybe follow the Mosaic Law, and in their case, here it was to be circumcised.
Remember that circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. But at this time, it was associated with the Mosaic Law, and it was also emphasized because it was a sign of patriotism and loyalty to being a Jew.
Acts 11:19
Acts 11:19
19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.
In Acts chapter eleven there was a situation where Paul was invited back to Antioch by Barnabas (v.19) and after a period of time in the church there, there was a prophet, Agabus (v. 28)—early first century spiritual gift of prophecy—who “stood up and {began} to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.”
Acts 11:28
Acts 11:28
28 Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.
So then the disciples determined to send relief to brethren dwelling in Judea. This is the congregation coming together and saying they would send financial aid to the church in Jerusalem because the famine is hurting them. They took the money and sent it by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. This is referred to in chronological discussions as the famine visit. This is the second visit that Paul makes to Jerusalem. It is after this that Paul goes on his first missionary journey, and after the first missionary journey, in the fall of 49, they had the Jerusalem Council.
The issue is: What is Paul describing in Galatians 2:1-10?
Galatians 2:1-10
Galatians 2:1-10
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
This is important because here Paul describes a journey to Jerusalem, where the issues that are addressed are very similar to the issues addressed in Acts 15 where they are dealing with Gentiles and whether or not they should be required to be circumcised in order to be saved. Galatians deals with the error of adding obedience to the Law as a part of justification. It leads to the conclusion that we are not justified by the works of the Law but by faith alone.
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:16
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
So the point he is making here is related to justification. In chapter three he is going to start dealing with the issue of sanctification, and that is where he makes the statement:
Galatians 3:3
Galatians 3:3
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
—human ability, observing the Law, ritual, morality, etc.
In Acts 15, we see that even with the apostles, they are developing (not changing their doctrine) their clarity, focus, and understanding of doctrine. Too often, people get a quasi-mystical idea of how the apostles came to understand truth. There were perhaps times of revelation where they were given specific information, but generally they sat under a special kind of ministry under God the Holly Spirit. They studied the Word and had to figure it out through study of the Word. They didn’t just sit down and instantly come to the correct answer. We see that displayed in this process.
This was a significant shift from the way that they had always been brought up and had always thought, and they are grappling with it to come to an understanding of the church age and the relation of Jews and Gentiles in the church.
Galatians 2:1
Galatians 2:1
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
There is no mention in Acts of Titus going with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. This doesn’t mean Acts is wrong; it just means that Luke didn’t think that was relevant to his storyline, what he was trying to communicate. But Luke left a lot of things out. Whenever anybody writes, there are a lot of things that can be said and there are a lot of things that need to be left out. Not everything is necessary to make your point and argue for your basic thesis.
Galatians 2:2
Galatians 2:2
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Notice here that he said “because of revelation.” That means that he goes up privately; it is not a public thing. In Acts 15, it was public. The word “submitted” is an aorist tense, meaning past tense. “I preach” is a present-tense verb, indicating that he is still preaching. “I communicated to them in the past the gospel that I continue to preach”—faith alone in Christ alone. He communicated privately “to those who were of reputation,” i.e., to those in the church; it is a private meeting to see if they agree.
There are primary ways in which this is interpreted in terms of understanding and relating it to Paul’s trips in Acts. There is one group that equates Acts 15 to Galatians 2:1-10. The other primary group sees Acts 11:30 as the visit stated in Galatians chapter two.
In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas are sent as part of an official delegation from the church at Antioch to Jerusalem to resolve this dispute in the Antioch church by these men who have come up from Judea. In Galatians 2, however, Paul says he is prompted in going to have this private visit by revelation. He will deal with the issue of the role of the Gentiles privately. The reason he is going to deal with it privately is because of the revelation. It is dealt with publicly by an official delegation in Acts 15. That is the second reason that Acts 11:30 fits better. The conference in Acts 15 was a public meeting that involved lengthy discussions, which were all out in the open.
A third reason is that if Galatians chapter two talks about the Acts 15 visit, then it never mentions the conclusion of the Acts 15 council. The conclusion reached in the Jerusalem Council was that it was fine for Gentiles to join the church. They didn’t have to pass any inspection related to the Mosaic Law; they only needed to stay away from things sacrificed to idols and from fornication, which everybody understood they needed to do anyway.
Fourth, the conclusion of the Acts 15 visit was to tell the Gentiles they didn’t have to follow the Law. They had to stay away from things sacrificed to idols, eating bloody meat, and sexual immorality. Whereas in Galatians 2:10 the conclusion is:
Galatians 2:10
Galatians 2:10
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
So, their conclusion as to what they were expecting Gentiles to do is very different in Galatians 2:10 from what was decided upon in Acts 15.
When Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas in the famine visit, he knows that he will have a private meeting with the leaders there, and so in order to clarify the issue, he takes Titus along with him as a test case. The reason is that Titus is a Gentile and has not been circumcised. So, the issue: Will the apostles in Jerusalem accept Titus on a full footing, or will they require that he be circumcised? If everybody in Jerusalem gets upset with Titus because he hasn’t been circumcised, then that would create major divisions and problems within the infant church. Paul wanted to deal with this in private so that there wouldn’t be a huge public explosion.
Galatians 2:3
Galatians 2:3
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
The Acts 11:30 visit comes after Peter took the message to Cornelius in Acts chapter ten. At that point in Acts 11, their understanding is that Gentiles have equal access to be a member of the new church, and they are not emphasizing the Mosaic Law. They have an understanding of grace. So the leaders in Jerusalem passed the grace test, and they did not require Titus to be circumcised.
Galatians 2:4-5
Galatians 2:4-5
4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
He stood the ground for grace.
Galatians 2:6-8
Galatians 2:6-8
6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
In these verses, we come to understand that there is a division of focus between Paul and Peter, that Peter was primarily the apostle to the Jews. But that didn’t mean he didn’t visit the Gentiles. He was God’s choice to open the door to the Gentiles by taking the gospel to Cornelius. In the same way, just because Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, it didn’t mean that Paul was wrong if he took the gospel to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. Paul wasn’t prohibited from evangelizing Jews any more than Peter was prohibited from evangelizing Gentiles. It is just that that wasn’t their primary area of focus.
Galatians 2:9
Galatians 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
This precedes the first missionary journey.
Galatians 2:10
Galatians 2:10
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
Let’s look at the next section in Galatians because it shows us the confusion in the early church, even with someone like Peter. After the famine visit to Jerusalem, Peter subsequently came to Antioch, and there was another confrontation. So, in this chain of events, there was the first little confrontation between God and Peter: the sheet from heaven incident. Peter finally got the point and took the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10. In Acts 11, he gave a report back to the church at Jerusalem, and everything seemed to be fine. Then we get to the famine visit at the end of the chapter, and though Acts 11 doesn’t go into it, Galatians 2:1-10 does, and there is another discussion about the role of Gentiles in the church. Then there is another confrontation that occurs back in Antioch, and this is described in Galatians 2:11-15.
Galatians 2:11
Galatians 2:11
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
So we find out that Peter has been vacillating and has been hypocritical about how he has treated Jews and Gentiles. Paul explains.
Galatians 2:12
Galatians 2:12
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
They were the Jews but they were still emphasizing circumcision.
Galatians 2:13
Galatians 2:13
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
So, even though they had gone through this transition of understanding, with revelation from God to Peter in Acts 10 and 11, even though there has been a resolution of the issue described in Galatians 2:1-10 of the famine visit in Acts 11:30, there is another meeting that is not described in Acts. This is when they came up to Antioch, and Peter was called out for his hypocrisy. It has carried away all the Jews except for Paul. He is the only one who clearly understands the issue.
Galatians 2:14
Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
That is the issue here. Paul is keeping his eye on the objective and the ball. It is the purity of the gospel that it is faith alone in Christ alone.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
Galatians 2:15-16
Galatians 2:15-16
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Galatians 2:17
Galatians 2:17
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
Galatians 2:19-21
Galatians 2:19-21
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
That is the bottom line. If we get righteousness from what we do then Christ died in vain. That is why the gospel excludes every manner of works. If you add anything to the gospel, anything to faith alone, you destroy the gospel.
This is clarified. So we have the issue of Peter going to Cornelius, the visit of Acts 11:30, the confrontation with Peter in Antioch, and then after the second missionary journey with the tremendous response among the Gentiles there is a fourth meeting in Acts 15 to deal with this issue of what is going to be required of the Gentiles.
Acts 15:3
Acts 15:3
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.
There were probably a lot of males who thought it was quite wonderful that they weren’t going to have to be circumcised! That’s probably the subtext here. But Barnabas and Paul are taking their time travelling south. They are visiting all the congregations, emphasizing this free work of grace that God was doing among the Gentiles, and that they are not required to be saved by also entering into the Mosaic Law via circumcision.
Acts 15:4
Acts 15:4
4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
But a conflict comes up.
Acts 15:5
Acts 15:5
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
These Pharisees are believers, but after accepting grace, they have decided to add something to the mix. More is going on here than simply saying they need to be circumcised; they need to do something in addition to the cross to be saved. They are still thinking that to become the people of God they have to become Jewish. They haven’t understood the distinction between Israel and the church. This is the reverse side of the group that comes along later on and says that God has replaced Israel with the church. They didn’t understand that there were two distinct peoples of God in God’s plan. There was a Jewish plan in the Old Testament, and with the Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah, God’s plan for Israel was put on hold; there was a pause. God has generated a new people where Jew or Gentile issues are not related, only faith in Christ, and that at that moment we become a new spiritual entity in the church where Jew and Gentile are not part of it.
There are many different types of messianic congregations. Some fail to understand this issue because they are now in the church. Their Jewishness is not a factor in terms of anything because their reward and inheritance are going to be with the church. It is not going to be a future land. They are neither Jew nor Greek in the church, and their inheritance is not related to the land; it is distinct from God’s promise to Israel. This is the problem: understanding that God has a particular plan for the Jew and a distinct plan for the church. God will return to a focus on Israel after the Rapture of the church, but until then, the focus is on this new entity where neither Jew nor Gentile is an issue.
Acts 15:6
Acts 15:6
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
The word “look” is the Greek verb οραω--horao, meaning to look at something. So they are going to examine it. It is used metaphorically to examine, ascertain, and evaluate the various arguments regarding a position. As they do, there is a dispute. It can mean an investigation, but it more or less has the idea of a discussion or a debate. They will hash out, listen to all sides, and then come to a conclusion. In the process, they give a great model of how churches and mature believers should work through details and reach a particular conclusion. They are not out for any specific agenda, and in the end, even those who are former Pharisees agree with them.
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:6-31
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:6-31
Acts 15:6
Acts 15:6
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
We see here how they are learning to resolve a doctrinal issue. They already have the revelation they need to make the decision they need to make. This is one of those passages that counters a lot of the quasi-mysticism that is in the church. We hear from a lot of people all the time who think that somehow God is going to tell them what to do in a decision-making situation. What God has said is that He has given us His Word, and we need to reflect upon His Word and ask Him to guide and direct us in understanding His Word. His Word will give us what we need to make those decisions. God is not giving new revelation or new information.
In this situation, there is a doctrinal matter that they have to resolve, and there are really two aspects to the problem they are facing. One is the doctrinal issue. Is circumcision, an aspect of obeying the Law, necessary for either salvation or the spiritual life? Then, there is a second issue, which is social. That is an important thing to talk about and something that isn’t talked about a lot. It really goes into the area the apostle Paul talks about in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 regarding doubtful things, because there is a social problem with the fact that there are observant Jews who are socially trained and culturally trained to observe the Law and the dietary restrictions of the Law. Now they are believers, but they may not be looking at following those aspects of the Law as something related to salvation or the spiritual life. But that is their background. It is how they were raised and taught, so having Gentiles come in with practices that can offend is also a part of this dynamic. So there are two problems. One is a doctrinal problem, the other is in the area of doubtful things and a grey area of cultural and social issues.
This is going to be important. We will lay the groundwork a little bit for what we will see later on because this is something that hasn’t been taught very well in a lot of congregations. We have to remember that this is a transitional book, but when we get down the road to Acts 20 or 21 when Paul comes to Jerusalem and is observing a vow, following the Law, he is said to be someone who keeps the Law. What about the Jerusalem Council? What about what Paul said to Peter in Galatians 2? Why is Paul keeping the Law? He is keeping the Law, not for salvation or sanctification, but he is observing the Law because he is dealing with Jews for whom that is significant. And as Paul said, he tried to be all things to all people. In other words, he is not to intentionally be obnoxious or offensive to anyone, and to consider these things.
Most of the Jews throughout the community and in the Jerusalem church are still going to the temple, which is still in existence; they are still observing a lot of the Jewish ritual calendar, but they are not doing it for the wrong reasons; they are doing it for social and cultural reasons. So we have to look at these two issues. First, there is the theological side to the issue, in which the Law has no relevance, and then there is the cultural, historical side. They would still want to observe Passover, their Independence Day. They would remember Yom Kippur, and with them as believers, that would have special significance because they would understand that as having been fulfilled in Jesus. But they do not observe these things in the sense that they are necessary or add anything to their salvation or spiritual life. Those are distinctions that too many people do not make.
The leadership that comes together here is described in terms of the apostles and the elders. The term “apostle” refers to the eleven (now twelve with Paul present) and the “elders,” which refers to the pastors. When we get into the Greek New Testament, three Greek words are used to describe pastoral leadership. Over the course of church history, these terms have been misdefined, misused, and have come to represent some different traditions in churches as to how they govern themselves. We have the term “elders,” the term “bishop,” and the term “pastor” used to describe the same person.
There are other church traditions that have distinguished these. The Episcopal form of government, from the Greek word for “bishop,” is one where there are pastors in the area. Still, one person is elevated over the pastor in that area, and he becomes known by the end of the second century as the bishop over the other pastors in a geographical location. Later on, coming out of the Protestant Reformation, in reaction to the Episcopal form of government which was everything—the Roman Catholic church is an Episcopal form of government and the pope is the bishop of Rome over the entire universal church—there was the development of the Reformed churches and what became known as a plurality of elders or Presbyterian. In Presbyterian government, the local church is usually divided into two groups: a group of elders and a group of deacons. Then, in the Presbyterian denomination, representatives from each congregation go to a higher group called a synod, which represents or oversees a number of different congregations.
Then there is what is usually referred to as Baptist government, which views the pastor as the elder, and again, there is a board of deacons in a local church. It doesn’t matter what you call different functionaries in church leadership positions. Successful churches all basically follow the same pattern; it doesn’t matter what you call them. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what you call them because the successfully, well-organized churches tend to have the same leadership with different labels.
These words that are used in the Scripture for pastor, elder, and bishop are seen to be synonymous. We see this by comparing scripture with scripture. Titus chapter one and 1 Timothy chapter three give basic, minimal qualifications for elders. In Titus 1:5 , Paul introduces this to Titus:
Titus 1:5
Titus 1:5
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—
Titus 1:7
Titus 1:7
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,
Bishop and elder both focus on the same person who is being appointed. In verse 5, we see the term “elder” or presbuteros, and this is synonymous with episkopos, “bishop.” They refer to the same person.
In Acts 20:17, 28 which is part of the section which describes Paul’s stop-over in Miletus we see
Acts 20:17
Acts 20:17
17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.
Acts 20:28
Acts 20:28
28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
So they are called elders in verse 17, bishops in verse 28, but what do they do? They shepherd the church of God. The noun is poimenos, the verb is poimaino, meaning to shepherd.
Each of these words tells us something different about the leader's role, the congregation's pastor. A practical reason for not believing in the plurality of elders is that there have been congregations where there were no men qualified to be elders. The episkopos looks at the leadership responsibility of the pastor. He is the leader of the congregation, the overseer. A manager often used this word in a secular setting. Poimenos emphasizes his function as the one who feeds the sheep. That is how he leads the sheep—through the feeding of the sheep. Presbuteros emphasizes that he has a level of spiritual maturity, not necessarily physical maturity, but he should have a measure of spiritual maturity to lead the congregation. One of the reasons these three different words are used is to give a fuller perspective of the leader.
So in Acts 15:6, the terms apostles and elders reference the local churches' leaders. They come together in order to look into and investigate the matter. As they do that, they are arguing, getting into some lively discussion, and this may have gone on for a couple of days as they are struggling to understand the Scripture, the concept of grace, and what has happened recently. Luke doesn’t go into all of the debates, he just summarizes: “After there had been much debate.” Then we get Peter’s conclusion.
The thing to focus on is that the authority that they go to in this debate is the revelation of God. Part of that revelation is New Testament revelation that hasn’t been enscripturated yet, and part of it is Old Testament revelation that has been enscripturated. It begins with Peter.
Acts 15:7
Acts 15:7
Acts 15:7 NASB “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.’”
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
And just as another note, there were no women present. This isn’t because women were second-class citizens, which is what liberal progressives will tell us, or that God has no significant role for women in the body of Christ, but that God has reserved the leadership responsibility in the church to men. This is made very clear in 1 Timothy 2:8ff where Paul prohibits Timothy from having women as teachers or exercising any authority over men. Peter here is referring back to the events in Acts chapters 10 and 11. In those chapters, Peter learned that God had opened the door to the Gentiles, and as a leader of the apostles, he is the one whom God chose to do that. Here again we see that the only thing required for salvation is “believe”— “the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.” The issue that Peter emphasizes is hearing and believing.
Acts 15:8
Acts 15:8
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
This is the Greek word καρδιογνώστης--kardiognostes [kardio = heart; gnostes = know].
“… testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit”
God is validating them as equal participants in the body of Christ with Jews. They are no better and no worse; they have equal access to God through Jesus Christ with the Jews; there is no racial distinction as there had been in the Old Testament. So God acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, and here is the key:
“just as He also did to us.”
The Jews and the Gentiles both enter into the body of Christ on the same condition, which is faith alone in Christ alone. It does not involve the Law.
Acts 15:9
Acts 15:9
9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
The word “cleansing/purifying” is καθαρίζω--katharizo, a word to describe, in this context, positional cleansing that occurs at the instant of salvation. We are cleansed in the process of the baptism by the Holy Spirit as we are washed by regeneration and renewed by the ministry of God the Holy Spirit. The word “heart” refers to the inner man, the immaterial part of man.
Acts 15:10
Acts 15:10
10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
He refers to the Gentile believers as disciples, which shows that he does not doubt they are saved. The word translated “test” is πειράζω--peirazo, which has the idea of testing or trying God or, why do you put this additional burden on there? He refers to the Law as a heavy yoke that was made out of wood to join two oxen together to pull something, restricting their freedom. Paul uses the exact phrase in Galatians 5:1 NASB
Galatians 5:1
Galatians 5:1
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
Paul is talking about those who apply the Law as necessary for sanctification. So both Paul and Peter use this idiom to refer to the Mosaic Law or the Torah as a yoke. This same metaphor is used to describe the Torah in the Mishnah. And even though rabbinic writings of the second temple period and later on were filled with a lot of praise for the glories and value of the Torah, the average person really hated its burden. Not only that, but they had so overloaded the Mosaic Law’s 613 commandments with another 3-4000 commandments of their own from the Mishnah and even more from the Talmud.
Acts 15:11
Acts 15:11
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
That is, without the Law. The Law is not relevant to salvation. Again, he emphasizes that the gospel is the same for Jews and Gentiles.
Side note: There have been some in the evangelical community who have sought a way to get Jews saved apart from faith in Jesus. This is sometimes called the two-covenant way of salvation.
Sunday, June 1, 2025
Sunday, June 1, 2025
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:6-31
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:6-31
We are in that part of the book of Acts which is documenting what has been known as the Jerusalem Council. This is the gathering of the apostles and pastors to deal with the growing issue of the salvation of Gentiles as opposed to the salvation of the Jews. What differences are there?
Summary of Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council
Acts 15 recounts the pivotal Jerusalem Council, convened to address the controversy surrounding the inclusion of Gentiles in the early church. The issue arose when certain believers from the Pharisaic tradition insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic Law to be saved. This led to a significant dispute in Antioch, prompting Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to seek guidance from the apostles and elders.
At the council, Peter reminded the assembly that God had already demonstrated His acceptance of Gentiles by granting them the Holy Spirit, just as He had done for Jewish believers. He argued that imposing the Mosaic Law on Gentiles was an unnecessary burden, emphasizing salvation through grace rather than legalistic adherence. Paul and Barnabas further testified about the miracles and conversions among Gentiles, reinforcing the idea that God was working among them without requiring circumcision.
James, the brother of Jesus, provided the final judgment, citing Scripture to affirm that Gentiles were indeed part of God's redemptive plan. He proposed a resolution: Gentiles should abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, consuming blood, and eating meat sacrificed to idols—practices deeply offensive to Jewish believers. This decision upheld unity while avoiding unnecessary legal burdens on Gentile converts.
Outline Form:
Jerusalem Council Issue:
Pharisaic believers demanded Gentile circumcision and adherence to Mosaic Law for salvation.
A dispute arose in Antioch, leading to a council in Jerusalem.
Key Arguments:
Peter: Salvation is through grace, not the Law; God has already accepted Gentiles.
Paul & Barnabas: Miracles among Gentiles confirm God's work without circumcision.
James: Scripture supports Gentile inclusion; proposes minimal requirements for unity.
Resolution:
Gentiles must avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, consuming blood, and meat sacrificed to idols.
No requirement for circumcision or full Mosaic Law adherence.
Decision fosters unity between Jewish and Gentile believers.
This council set a precedent for the church, affirming salvation by grace and establishing a framework for Gentile inclusion that did not impose Jewish customs.
Acts 15:12-14
Acts 15:12-14
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
He starts by reviewing the evidence (Simon’s) that God is taking out a people for His name from among the Gentiles. God has always had a people. He has had a remnant of Jews, and He is now focusing on Gentiles.
Acts 15:15
Acts 15:15
15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
He is now going to Old Testament revelation. Paul and Peter have both referred to the new revelation God has given them related to the church age, but James is going to go back to Old Testament revelation. He is going to go to a passage from Amos.
There are several different passages in the prophets he could refer to. That is why he will say in his introduction here, “With this, the words of the Prophets agree.”
There are four different ways in which Old Testament prophecies are cited as being fulfilled in the New Testament.
The first is a literal prophecy that is fulfilled literally, such as in Matthew 2:5-6 where we find a quote from Micah 5:2 that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:5-6
Matthew 2:5-6
5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”
Micah 5:2
Micah 5:2
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”
The second is a type, which is what we see in Matthew 2:14-15 when there is a quote that the passage is fulfilled: “out of Egypt I will call my people.”
Just as Israel came out of Egypt, that type or picture is used to portray something that would occur in the life of Christ, where Joseph and Mary were told to flee because Herod was going to kill the babies.
Matthew 2:14-15
Matthew 2:14-15
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
When they came back out of Egypt, that is the fulfillment of a type. It is not a literal prophecy but a typical prophecy and historical fulfillment. Then there is another category: a historical statement with an application.
Third, we have an example of a historical statement with an application when Rachel is crying over her children, in Matthew 2:17-18 as taken from Jeremiah 31:15.
Matthew 2:17-18
Matthew 2:17-18
17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more.”
Jeremiah 31:15
Jeremiah 31:15
15 Thus says the Lord: “A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”
This refers to the mothers of Israel weeping as their sons and daughters were being hauled off in the Babylonian captivity. That was a literal historical event. That is later applied to the mothers of the infants that are slaughtered in Bethlehem. It wasn’t a prophecy in the Old Testament at all; it just stated a historical fact, but it is used by application to describe what was going on when the mothers were weeping over their slaughtered children at the time of Herod. Something is taken out of the Old Testament statement that is applied to the current situation. It is not saying it is a fulfillment of prophecy, only that there is something we learn from the Old Testament that validates what we are looking at right now.
Then we have the 4th method of quotation as a summary of Old Testament passages in the New Testament as seen in the text of our passage in Acts 15:15: “…the words of the Prophets agree.”
This is the Greek word συμφωνέω—SUMPHONEO, from which we get our English word “symphony,” the harmony of things that come together. So all the words of the prophets harmonized. They all support this same idea is what James is saying.
We then have James’ summary quotation or statement of summary from the
Acts 15:16-18
Acts 15:16-18
16 ‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.’ 18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.
The precise wording here does not fit the wording of the Masoretic Text. The apostles often use their LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the wording differs slightly from the Masoretic Text, and the words here differ from what became the standard Septuagint text later on. What has been discovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls is that there were a number of readings that were the exact same reading as this quote from James. It shows that he has just memorized one particular version of the LXX. The variants don’t change the doctrine or the ideas at all, so by quoting it, it is just as valid and has the authorization of God the Holy Spirit.
Amos 9:11-12
Amos 9:11-12
11 “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
Sometimes the writers of the New Testament will quote this much from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and they are just emphasizing one word or one phrase, but they give the whole context, giving one or two verses. That is the case here. He is just zeroing in on part of what is said in the middle of
Amos 9:12
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
Amos 9:12—“all the nations [Gentiles] who are called by my name.”
The implication of that statement that Amos is drawing out is that God has a plan to save a vast number of Gentiles as well. It is not only a Jewish remnant in the messianic kingdom or God’s plan for the future, but there is a Gentile remnant as well. God is not restricting His soteriological plan to Jews. This shows that part of the kingdom in the future will be made up of Gentiles, so there is no problem with Gentiles being included in this dispensation either.
There are some people who come along and say rebuilding the tabernacle of David is a reference to the Davidic lineage. And that part of it is genuine. The tabernacle of David is just a way of referring to the Davidic line that ceased when Zedekiah was taken off the throne in 586 BC.
Jesus is the descendant of David, and He will fulfill those Davidic covenant promises. But they go on to say that the church is rebuilding the tabernacle of David. But that misses the whole point. That is a non-literal interpretation. It is what we call an allegorical or non-literal understanding of the text.
The tabernacle of David refers to David's house and lineage, but the church doesn’t fulfill that. Jesus fulfills that, and that will occur in the future. This is used to support what is called “replacement theology,” which is a way of saying God no longer has a plan for the Jews; He only has a plan for the Gentiles.
James concludes:
Acts 15:19
Acts 15:19
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
There are two important words here. The first is the word “trouble.” The Greek word is παρενοχλέω--parenochleo, which means to trouble, to annoy, to add extra trouble to somebody, or to harass them. He is viewing this as if they are just harassing these Gentiles because they don’t have a Jewish background. Why do we want to harass all these Gentile men by making them get circumcised?
These Gentiles are “turning to God”—ἐπιστρέφω--EPISTREPHO.
Remember, as we have discussed multiple times, there are two different words are used in the Greek for different aspects of the turning: epistrepho means to turn, to change direction; metanoeo means to change your mind. They are the counterparts of the Hebrew shub [turn, as epistrepho] and nacham [repent]. You would first change your mind and then change direction. So epistrepho is a broader-based word that covers everything, including metanoeo (repent).
On a spectrum, it would be like this. You repent (change your mind about something), then you turn, and then you end up believing.
So somebody who believes has changed their mind and they’ve turned. It is just assumed that that would be part of the process. Sometimes people get wrapped around the axles and ask: Do you have to repent to be saved? Yes, and no. If we understand it right, it doesn’t mean you repent from your sins, but it is not a stated condition. You can be saved from reading the Gospel of John, which says that “these things [the Gospel of John] were written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through His name.” John never once mentions the word “repent.” But repentance is also a sort of subtext in belief. If you go from believing one thing to something else, you have turned and changed your mind. In that sense, it is a subtext. But it really often creates a non-issue of argument.
The fourth things the Gentiles have to do is mentioned in Acts 15:20
Acts 15:20
Acts 15:20
20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
This is the area of doubt we encounter in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. Paul says there is nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols because the idols are nothing; the meat hasn’t been tainted or anything, but that may bother some people.
So, for conscience's sake, don’t do something offensive to people if they are not mature enough or knowledgeable enough to understand the issues. That is a social issue, not a doctrinal issue.
“… and from fornication [sexual immorality] and from what is strangled and from blood.”
Under the Mosaic Law, animals were not supposed to be eaten if they were strangled. They were to drain the blood.
Sexual immorality here doesn’t refer to fornication. This is the Greek word porneia, a very broad word, and it was also used to apply to illegitimate marriages according to the Mosaic Law.
That usually meant someone who was a kissing cousin, too closely related according to Jewish Law. These are not doctrinal issues here. They have already solved the doctrinal issues: they don’t need to obey the Law to be saved or sanctified. But it is a good idea if you are going to socialize with Jews not to offend them, so we think it is a good idea that you avoid certain things.
So the issue comes down to the grey areas. It is not related to doctrine, it is related to the fact that if you are going to socialize with Jews, then you need to be socially acceptable to Jews who may not understand grace as well as you. That is their point.
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:14-21
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:14-21
There is a real battle over this particular passage, and there are two key issues here. The first is an issue of interpretation: what does the text mean, and do we interpret on a literal basis or an allegorical basis? In a society where intellectual pursuits are in decline, when morality is challenged, and when traditions of Judeo-Christianity are being challenged, the battlefield is no longer on what the text says in any arena, but what the text means. That is not just what the text of the Bible means, but what the Constitution means. The battle shifts away from what it says and how we implement it to what it means. And you start battling over what the best way to interpret those documents is.
Once a theological system validates an allegorical system, it has sacrificed the understanding of objective truth. Allegory is basically assigning subjective values to various things in the text, so that your ideas and another person’s ideas are going to change. There is no control over the meaning of the text. That is not to say that with literal interpretation we deny the use of figures of speech or metaphor, but those figures of speech, idioms, or metaphors are used within a standard context.
The issue of replacement theology. The three chapters, Romans 9-11, deal with God’s plan for Israel: that God has not given up Israel and that the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the promises to David, the promises to the Jewish people have not been transferred to the church. They are still going to be fulfilled eventually with the Jewish people, and that is also at the foundation of this passage.
That central issue of interpretation leads to the second issue in this passage, which is replacement theology. Replacement theology is rearing its ugly head again in a lot of political ways in what is becoming known as “Palestinian Christianity” as opposed to Judeo-Christianity. This has been expressed through various organizations for approximately thirty years now. It is pure liberal utopianism, and it is loaded with a lot of lies and a lot of the propaganda that comes out of the Palestinian community, but what governs it is replacement theology. It is a theological narrative that reinterprets biblical promises to Israel, aligning them with Palestinian national identity.
In the last 150 years, there has been a continuous increase in the number of evangelicals who support Israel because of a biblical foundation. This is starting to stem that tide of replacement theology. In the recent past, the pop theology pastor Rick Warren has over 750,000 churches and pastors who have signed on to his whole “purpose-driven” insanity, and they had to follow that entire blueprint to the letter or be kicked. So they all followed his popular false teaching. Rick Warren’s ecumenical worldwide evangelism movement was/is into this Palestinian Christianity and the anti-Christian Zionism mentality. Rick Warren himself denies advocating for this. This is highly distressing and concerning, but given the times we live in, that is what we should expect as things fall apart.
These issues are central to understanding this particular passage in Acts 15.
Acts 15:13-14
Acts 15:13-14
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
because the church is a group that is called out from the world to assemble as the church, as “people for His name.” This brings up an important issue as well, i.e., are there just one people of God or are there two?
In replacement theology and many forms of covenant theology, there is a single people of God. In their view, that is the church of the Old Testament, and the church is the Israel of God in the New Testament. That is their view; there is one people of God throughout all of history. But what we have here is not a reference to that concept. In pre-millennial theology, and especially dispensational theology, there are two peoples of God: the church and Israel, and there is a distinction. God has a distinct plan for these two groups.
As James begins to speak here, he references what Peter has just said. Peter talked about the revelation that God gave him in Joppa when he was to go to Caesarea, where Cornelius was located. God gave him a new revelation indicating His plan to take the gospel to the Gentiles and include them in this new people where there would be neither Jew nor Gentile, but all one in Christ. Now, James, based on Old Testament revelation—their appeal is to Scripture, not experience—appeals from Amos. When James quotes in Acts 15, he is quoting from the LXX, but it is not identical to what is usually accepted as the main LXX text today.
In the Old Testament, you have the development of the text of Scripture. Still, it didn’t reach a final form until after the return from the Babylonian exile, and probably under the oversight of Ezra.” It is not identical to the text we have. It seems like the text wasn’t quite as set as it became by the period after Christ. The Hebrew text at that time was written in consonants, with no vowels. You can probably get out a dictionary and find several words that would look the same if they had vowels removed and just had three or four consonants there, words that have no correlation or relationship to one another whatsoever. Part of the job of the Jewish scribal community after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was to finalize the form of the Hebrew text. That fell under a group called the Masoretes. They developed, by the second or third century after Christ, a way of indicating vowels. They inserted vowel points, a system of dots or vertical lines put under the consonants to indicate where the vowels would be. However, it has become increasingly clear through studies of people in Old Testament textual criticism that the Masoretes had an anti-messianic agenda. By the time they finalized what we refer to as our standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, the Jewish community was facing heavy pressure from the gospel. During the early part of this era, the trend in the Jewish community was to devise alternative interpretations for the messianic prophecies, such as Micah 5:2; Isaiah 53, and numerous others, including the passage in Amos. The Masoretes worked on this, and if they changed the vowels in a word, it would change the meaning of the word in that verse so that it no longer had a messianic implication.
At Dallas Seminary during the 1970s, there was only one man in the Old Testament department who believed that there were many messianic prophecies. The standard view in the Old Testament department at Dallas in the late 1970s was that there was only one messianic prophecy in the entire Old Testament. This is becoming increasingly popular among evangelical scholars today, and it is not a new perspective. Calvin held that view, and many of the reformers held that view, because where did they learn Hebrew? They went and got a Jewish rabbi to teach them Hebrew. And the Jewish rabbi had been influenced by an 11th-century rabbi who goes by the acronym Rashi, who had worked out many of these alternative non-messianic interpretations for these passages. So that non-messianic interpretation of those passages, in combination with non-messianic editing of the Masoretes, influenced a stream of evangelicals.
Another major player in understanding Hebrew textual criticism is the scholar Emanuel Tov. He said that whenever the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch or the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic Text, especially in these messianic prophecies, go with the reading in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX and forget the Masoretic Text. But the view held in a lot of evangelical seminaries is to always go with the Masoretic Text, that is, the final line. But suppose you go with the Masoretic Text. In that case, you have to cut 90% of what we traditionally believe are messianic prophecies in the Old Testament because they get re-edited by the Masoretes.
Sunday, June 1, 2025
Sunday, June 1, 2025
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:6-31
Jews and Gentiles in One Body. Acts 15:6-31
We are dealing with an important text in Acts that is central to the argument of replacement theology.
In replacement theology and many forms of covenant theology, there is a single people of God. In their view, that is the church of the Old Testament, and the church is the Israel of God in the New Testament. That is their view; there is one people of God throughout all of history. But what we have here is not a reference to that concept. In pre-millennial theology, and especially dispensational theology, there are two peoples of God: the church and Israel, and there is a distinction. God has a distinct plan for these two groups.
As James begins to speak here, he references what Peter has just said. Peter talked about the revelation that God gave him in Joppa when he was to go to Caesarea, where Cornelius was located. God gave him a new revelation indicating His plan to take the gospel to the Gentiles and include them in this new people where there would be neither Jew nor Gentile, but all one in Christ. Now, James, based on Old Testament revelation—their appeal is to Scripture, not experience—appeals from Amos. When James quotes in Acts 15, he is quoting from the LXX, but it is not identical to what is usually accepted as the main LXX text today.
Our passage begins:
Acts 15:13-15
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
In our passage in Acts, James is quoting from an LXX passage of his day, and even though this exact wording isn’t found in the standard LXX that we have today, several scholars have identified some identical readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls versions.
Acts 15:16-17
16 ‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.’
Now James is quoting from Amos, but he is saying that on this the prophets agree.
We see that, starting in chapter nine, Amos finally offers the Israelites real hope of change. He has hit them again and again, one punch of judgment after another judgment, all the way through from especially chapter seven on, with only a smattering of grace offerings.
Amos 7:3
Amos 7:3
Amos 7:3 NASB “The LORD changed His mind about this. ‘It shall not be,” said the LORD.”
3 So the Lord relented concerning this. “It shall not be,” said the Lord.
This is a sign of God’s grace, but God’s grace isn’t indicated again until 9:8 NASB
Amos 9:8
Amos 9:8
8 “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,” Says the Lord.
That term “sinful kingdom” refers primarily to Judah, the southern kingdom. The fact that He is not going to completely wipe out the Jews from the face of the earth is a sign of God’s grace.
Amos 9:9-10
Amos 9:9-10
9 “For surely I will command, And will sift the house of Israel among all nations, As grain is sifted in a sieve; Yet not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground. 10 All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, Who say, ‘The calamity shall not overtake nor confront us.’
In other words, they are saying God is not going to judge us, we can just live like we want. There was no accountability.
Amos 9:11
Amos 9:11
11 “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old;
This is where the quote comes into play in Acts 15.
Amos 9:11 says “On that day …”
In Acts 15 it doesn’t begin “On that day,” it begins “After this” in the NKJV or “After that” in the NASB.
That isn’t found in the LXX either. This is what has been identified by those who hold to it as an inspired “sensus plenior application.” Sensus plenior is just a Latin phrase for the whole meaning of the text. Something is said in the Old Testament, and you would never get from the Old Testament the application that is used in the New Testament.
Sensus plenior is extracting something from the text that you wouldn’t typically glean just by reading it.
Our Isagogical, Categorical, Exegetical interpretive approach, also known as the normal, literal, grammatical, historical, contextual approach to interpretation, rejects sensus plenior. We do so for the following reasons:
Authorial Intent – The literal-grammatical method prioritizes the meaning intended by the human author. Sensus plenior suggests that a passage may have a deeper meaning unknown to the author, which contradicts the principle that meaning is derived from the author's intent.
Exegetical Consistency – If Scripture contains hidden meanings beyond what the human author intended, it undermines the consistency of interpretation. This could lead to subjective readings where interpreters impose meanings not grounded in the text itself. When this happens it is no longer the text that is the authority, but the person who is interpreting it for you.
Rejection of Allegorization – Many who follow the literal-grammatical method reject allegorical or mystical interpretations. Sensus plenior can resemble allegorical or mystical approaches by suggesting that texts have meanings beyond their historical and grammatical context. This occurs a great deal in the Catholic and in the Charismatic/Pentecostal realms.
New Testament Use of the Old Testament – Some argue that the New Testament writers did not apply sensus plenior but rather interpreted the Old Testament in ways consistent with its original meaning. If sensus plenior were valid, it would imply that biblical authors themselves did not fully grasp the meaning of their writings, like the New Testament authors did.
So when we look at this passage:
11 “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old;
The application of that to the church isn’t evident in that passage. James is going to apply it (not say it is fulfilled) to what is happening in their circumstance in Acts 15. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he has the authority to expand the meaning of that text (but we don’t, because we don’t have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). This is an inspired use of the Old Testament that extends beyond the original meaning of the text. But he is summarizing the text of several prophetic passages that are in agreement — so He is not taking liberties that he should not, but is reflecting the understanding that summarizes where the words of the prophets agree.
Now we have to establish the structure of this section of Amos to follow what is happening here.
So we begin in
Amos 9:12
Amos 9:12
Which is quoted along with verse 11 by James.
But let’s note our structure.
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
Notice it ends, “SAYS the LORD who does this.” If we look at verse 8
Amos 9:8
Amos 9:8
8 “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,” Says the Lord.
That phrase, “Says the Lord.” ends the prior segment.
Then verse 9
Amos 9:9
Amos 9:9
9 “For surely I will command, And will sift the house of Israel among all nations, As grain is sifted in a sieve; Yet not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground.
We see a new subject that continues down through verse 12 where we have again,
Amos 9:12
Amos 9:12
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
That phrase, “Says the Lord who does this thing”, breaks the passage into segments.
Then verse 13 introduces a new element that relates to prophecy.
Amos 9:13
Amos 9:13
13 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “When the plowman shall overtake the reaper, And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; The mountains shall drip with sweet wine, And all the hills shall flow with it.
This prophecy is all related to the bounty and prosperity during the time of the Millennial kingdom. When the Lord returns there is going to be this abundance of production.
Amos 9:14-15
Amos 9:14-15
14 I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. 15 I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them,” Says the Lord your God.
This is talking about the restoration of the Jewish people to their historic land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by God. This is not being fulfilled today. What is being talked about here is the return of the remnant that exists at the end of the Tribulation when they have been regenerated and have welcomed the Messiah.
So, where does Amos 9:11-12 that James quotes, fit here?
Amos 9:11-12
Amos 9:11-12
11 “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
“On that day” is in relation to the conclusion of the judgments that are mentioned in the previous three chapters. It all comes to a head, and God finalizes the judgment on His people in vv. 9, 10.
Amos 9:9-10
Amos 9:9-10
9 “For surely I will command, And will sift the house of Israel among all nations, As grain is sifted in a sieve; Yet not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground. 10 All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, Who say, ‘The calamity shall not overtake nor confront us.’
Then He says, “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth [tabernacle] of David.” The word “tabernacle” in Hebrew is the word sukkah. It indicates a temporary dwelling.
This סֻכָּה (sukkah) is related to the concept of a tabernacle, tent, or shelter. The word derives from the root סָכַךְ (sakak), meaning "to cover" or "to weave together". It is often associated with temporary dwellings, such as those used during the Feast of Tabernacles (חַג הַסֻּכּוֹת), where Israelites built booths to commemorate their time in the wilderness.
While Shekinah (שְׁכִינָה) shares a linguistic connection through the root שָׁכַן (shakan), meaning "to dwell," it refers specifically to the manifest presence of God
The connection between סֻכָּה and Shekinah is theological rather than strictly linguistic. The sukkah represents temporary human dwelling, while Shekinah signifies divine presence dwelling among people. Some interpretations see the sukkah as a symbol of God's protective presence, reinforcing the idea that He "tabernacles" with His people.
So this Tabernacle or SUKKAH describes the House of David, also known as the Davidic dynasty. The house of David had fallen by this time. Amos is announcing this judgment on the people. This judgment on the Davidic dynasty, this judgment on Judah, is going to come to a crashing halt with Zedekiah in 586 BC when Judea and the temple is destroyed by Nebuchanezzar, which then means that for God to fulfill His promise to David in the Davidic covenant He will have to restore the house of David.
Literal interpretation here means that this relates to the house of David. You can’t transfer it to the church. That is what covenant theology does and what replacement theology does. They leave behind a literal interpretation and argue that this must refer to the church, as the tabernacle of David is here understood to be the church. They then attempt to make the restoration of the tabernacle of David align with what happened on the day of Pentecost.
In verse 12, we have an interesting reference: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom.” You can hear the similarity between Edom and Adam.
What are the consonants of Edom? DM. What are the consonants in Adam? DM.
How do you tell which is which if there are no vowels or no vowel points? You have the same two consonants. So context has to tell you what it is. You can change the vowels, and in one case it is Adam, and in the other case it is Edom. If it refers to Edom, then this is a historical fulfillment related to the people of the Edomites. But of the original is Adam, which is also the word for mankind, it would be “that they may possess the remnants of mankind.” This is then related to a messianic prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah to rule over the entire human race. That is precisely what we have in this particular passage.
In verse 11 this is how it reads in the Masoretic text: “In that day I will cause to stand the booth [feminine singular noun] of David, the fallen one [feminine singular noun again], I will wall up their breeches [feminine plural noun] …” To what does that plural noun refer? It doesn’t fit. “ … and his ruins [masculine singular noun]…” To what does that refer? It isn't very clear in the Masoretic Text.
The same verse in the LXX (the pronouns all fit): “In that day I will raise up the tent of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins [the house of David]; and its remains I will raise up. And I shall rebuild it as in the days of old [12] so that the remnant of men [not Edom] shall seek [believers of all history, both Jew and Gentile], and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, says the Lord who shall do these things.”
The LXX makes more sense, but the Masoretic Text got messed with in terms of the pronouns and the meaning to obfuscate the messianic prophecy in the text. The ancient rabbinic view is that this is a messianic prophecy. The Masoretes obfuscated that by the way they added different vowel points to change the meaning so that it wouldn’t appear to be a messianic prophecy.
End of
The problem we encounter with the interpretation in Acts 15 is the confusion introduced by Calvinist Reformed covenantal theologians.
O. T. Allis was an Old Testament scholar from Westminster Seminary in the 30s-50s who said: “If James’ quotation here in Acts 15 refers to the Christian church, the claim of dispensationalists that prophecy skips over the church age cannot be maintained.”
He is trying to argue that James is saying that Amos 9 is fulfilled. But look carefully at the text of Acts 15:15.
15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
He doesn’t use the term “fulfillment.”
He states that the idea of God saving Gentiles is not new. The prophets agreed with that. He uses the word “prophets” in the plural, and that doesn’t just mean a plurality of prophets; it relates to the entire second division of the Hebrew Scriptures. James isn’t talking about individual prophets, and he is talking about that section that is called “the prophets.”
Another scholar, a postmillennialist, Ken Gentry said:
“This is one of the passages in the New Testament to illustrate how the church fulfills prophecies regarding Israel; and that this is the ultimate fulfillment of many prophecies to Israel, symbolically depicted as Israel.”
He gets into allegorical interpretation.
“I note above that some Old Testament prophetic passages apply to the Gentiles calling in the New Testament. Consequently they speak of the church.”
These come from Gentry’s book He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (3rd ed.). These statements reflect his postmillennial and preterist perspective, where he argues that the church, including Gentile believers, fulfills Old Testament prophecies about Israel, such as those in Amos 9, through the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s covenant people.
Preterists believe that prophecy has already been fulfilled in history. The term comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past" or "beyond."
There are two main types of Preterism:
Partial Preterism: Believes that many prophecies, including those in the Olivet Discourse and much of Revelation, were fulfilled by AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. However, it still holds that Christ’s Second Coming and final resurrection are future events.
Full Preterism: Argues that all biblical prophecy—including the Second Coming and resurrection—was fulfilled by the end of the first century. This view is considered heretical by most Christian traditions.
Preterists often interpret passages like Matthew 24and Revelation as referring to first-century events, rather than a future apocalyptic scenario
They base this idea on the notion that Jesus is somehow still sitting on David’s throne today. The New Testament teaches in Revelation 3:21,
Revelation 3:21
Revelation 3:21
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
Currently, while Jesus is seated in heaven during what we call the session, He is not sitting on His own throne; He is seated on the Father’s throne.
So, as we examine this passage in Acts 15, it is not a passage where James states that the church fulfills this passage, that the church is the rebuilt tabernacle of David. He is simply saying that just as in the fulfillment of this passage in the future, there will be an inclusion of a large number of Gentiles in the kingdom. It is not outside the plan of God to include the salvation of Gentiles today. In other words, Gentiles don’t have to be Jews to be saved.
This is precisely what John Nelson Darby concluded in this passage. He said:
“Verses 11 & 12 of this chapter [in Amos] are quoted in Acts 15, not to show that the prophecy had then come to pass but to prove that God had all along determined to have a people from out of the Gentiles, and that therefore the language of the prophets agreed with that which Simon Peter had been relating of what God had done in his days. It is not the accomplishment of a prophecy but the establishment of a principle by the mouth of the prophets as well as the Word of the Spirit by Simon Peter.”
In other words, the principle is that God will save Gentiles. You don’t have to become Jewish to be saved. God has a separate plan for the Gentiles.
Grace: The Law of Love. Acts 15:22-41
Grace: The Law of Love. Acts 15:22-41
The pattern that we see here is a decision-making issue. They have a problem, and the way they are going to solve the problem is that they are going to discuss it—sometimes in an intense, heated discussion—and they are going to base it on the Word. And we see that as Paul spoke, as Peter spoke, as James spoke; they each went to divine revelation. They each appealed to the one and only ultimate authority that we have, which is the Word of God.
We want to wrap up this chapter by looking at it in a little different lens in terms of what we learn from this chapter in terms of application. Because there is a pattern there in how they approached the problem. The key concept, the category into which we plug this, is grace. We have a category in terms of a spiritual skill: grace orientation. That is what is exhibited in this whole episode at the end. Then there is another issue that comes up with Paul and Barnabas, and again, we see the same pattern exhibited.
So we have two problems. One is a theological problem that is generated by the Pharisee background believers who are now teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation. They have to address that problem. Then there was another problem. That is, blending Jew and Gentile from their different cultural backgrounds and how they can come together without getting an explosive, divisive, negative situation. And then they actually have a negative explosive situation that occurs in the subsequent episode, which has to do with Paul and Barnabas and the decision as to what they are going to do next, and the procedure. None of this is theological or doctrinal, and that is where we live in a lot of different areas in our life: we are just trying to make a decision, it is not necessarily moral versus immoral, not theologically correct versus theologically incorrect, not conservative versus liberal; it has to do with non-moral, non-spiritual issues. But they are not totally divorced from applying biblical principles to those conflicts and problems. And the one overarching issue that encompasses both circumstances is a grace-oriented approach.
Grace is one of those biblical words we hear a lot—like holy, like salvation, like saint, like justification. They are words that, because we are so familiar with them, we don’t hear them; they lose their power through familiarity. In the church age, we have this word “grace” that is used by every branch of theology. They all believe in grace. In a theological sense, we know that every world religion, no matter what it is, operates on a quid pro quo concept of God, that God is going to bless me if I do certain things. It is a concept that is equivocal: if I do X, God will do Y. And yet, grace nullifies all of that. That is the radical difference that we have in the Scripture.
Life works on grace. Suppose somebody takes you out to lunch one week. The following week, you feel like you have to return the favor. What if you are grace-oriented? It's nice and good manners if someone takes me out for lunch this week, and I want to return the favor. But somebody may say they don’t want me taking them out. That is grace; you have to get over yourself. That is a radical concept! I am going to do something for you, but I’m not going to let you return the favor because that would break the pattern of grace. So we have to come to understand what grace is. But this concept of works, doing something for something, permeates—and that isn’t saying it is wrong. The quid pro quo is not inherently bad, but it is when we come to theology, and the term that is used in Scripture is the term “works.”
Salvation is not by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5).
Titus 3:5
Titus 3:5
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
Works are completely excluded, and that is radical to biblical Christianity. In other words, God doesn’t treat us or deal with us based on what we deserve. He is not going to return in kind what we give towards Him, for which we are grateful, because if He did, none of us would be here;
there would be embers because that is what God’s justice would demand. But God is not only a God of righteousness and justice; He is a God of love, and this is inherent to His character. So He deals with us not based on what we deserve but based on what is best for us, what is good for us, despite whatever it might be that we have done. Grace really describes the positive action from God or from anyone that is neither deserved nor merited. It is doing something extraordinary and generous for someone, not based on who they are or what they have done. In fact, grace really is treating somebody in goodness and kindness and generosity when they really don’t deserve it, when they really have done something that deserved the opposite. That is what we see in the pattern of God’s grace.
Grace is the foundation for all of God’s actions towards the human race ever since Adam disobeyed God in the garden. From that point on, the human race, constitutionally in terms of our makeup, in terms of who we are, is totally undeserving of any merit or favor from God. But grace is God’s pattern with man, and it comes out of His love for human beings.
Grace
Grace
1. It is the foundation of our salvation to overcome the deficit of sin: the fact that we have this constitutional defect of being spiritually dead has to be overcome. Titus 3:5, 6; Ephesians 2:8, 9. “Gift of God” explains grace. God says grace is a free gift; nothing is expected in return. However, there is a responsibility that comes with accepting the gift, but not with obtaining it. Salvation is based on grace. God does the work, and we accept it as a free gift. -…………
2. The foundation for grace is a prime attribute of the essence of God. 1 John 4:8 says that God is love.
3. How do we define love? That is a challenging thing to do. If we pick up any number of dictionaries, everybody messes this up because love is always viewed from the human viewpoint as some emotion. But when we look at Scripture and our starting point for understanding love should be God.
There are many interesting things that a loving God does. A loving God opened up the earth to swallow several thousand Jews who followed Dathan and Abiram in their rebellion against Aaron and Moses.
God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying everyone in the population, and that is a loving God. That is His justice, and it is not inconsistent with His love either.
God turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt because she turned around and looked back;
Uzzah put forth his hand to steady the ark, and he died instantly.
We have to be able to factor that into love. Love is not just warm feelings. Love is tied to a much broader concept; it is not just this sentimental warmth that we often find in our shallow culture.
A helpful definition I’ve seen for love is that love seeks the absolute best for its object.
But as soon as we’ve brought in the word “best,” we’ve got a value to consider —
there is good, there is better, and there is best.
How do we determine the best? Too often, we immediately take that word “best” and add a little prepositional phrase to it (the hidden text): for me.
But we have something objective in Scripture, and that is why integrity has to go with love. And we only have that in the person of God.
We know what is best because we know His Word. Since God is omniscient, only God truly knows what is best for any of us in the objective sense. We must base this on God’s Word and our understanding of doctrine, which for us will only continue to grow.
We love people not based on our limited, myopic framework of what we think they ought to do, but based on the righteousness of God and the revelation of God.
That is the standard.
When we operate on that standard and only on that standard, can we truly love other people, so it takes a long time to develop that in our lives.
4. There are five spiritual skills that we have to develop in our lives at a basic level, or we will never get anywhere in this life.
Everything else is based on these five spiritual skills:
a) Confession of sin;
*b) We have to decide to walk by the Spirit, which means we are in dependence upon the Spirit. But the Spirit doesn’t operate apart from the Word, so we are obeying the Word and staying in fellowship, basically.
c) the faith-rest drill. We trust the promises and the commands of God, and the rest part is that we put it in God‘s hands; we cast our care upon Him and let Him take care of what He can take care of, and we take care of the responsible part that we take care of.
d) Grace orientation. That is foundational. We have to have our thinking shaped by grace. That starts by understanding the dynamics of the gospel, but it goes beyond that. Grace has to characterize everything in our lives when we deal with people. We are constantly dealing with spouses who are fallen, corrupt creatures, and children who are fallen, corrupt creatures, as well as employers and employees who are fallen, corrupt creatures. We also have to contend with a corrupt government. All systems in this world are corrupt at some level. We have to deal with all kinds of these systems, and the only way to deal with them and survive in sanity is to deal with them in grace.
Grace orientation involves a multitude of factors—humility in learning the Word, humility in submitting to the authority of God and the authority of the Word—but it ultimately manifests in how we treat others. One manifestation of this is just good manners, kindness, gentleness, and civility;
e) Doctrinal orientation. This means we orient our thinking to the teaching of God’s Word.
Sunday, June 15, 2025
Sunday, June 15, 2025
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 15.
The current study is Grace: The Law of Love, based on Acts 15:22-41
Grace: The Law of Love. Acts 15:22-41
Grace: The Law of Love. Acts 15:22-41
Acts 15:22-41
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. 30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement. 32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words. 33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles. 34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there. 35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. 36 Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” 37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Now this is a summary of the upcoming trip of Paul and Barnabas and Judas and Silas which split off and became Paul’s 2nd journey with Silas. This will
Now back to Chapter 15, we have an issue created by Pharyseeism, which is addressed by the Jerusalem councl, which unanimously agrees that Salvation is by Grace alone, and that the Gentiles are saved by Grace and not through the Judaic process of first becoming a proselyte then beling allowed to trust the Messiah of Israel.
So while the goal of Judaism should culminate in faith in Yeshuah Hamoshiac Y’israel, one does not need to become a Jew through proselytism to Judaism to become saved. You can trust in Yeshua as savior of mankind, not just as the savior of the Jews.
This is because of God’s grace. HIs grace plan was to provide the savior of the world through the Jewish Messiah.
the solution to the quandry of what to do with the Gentiles was to ask for social accommodations to allow for good will between Jew and Gentile, which was fitting.
The solution was one of Grace.
None of this is theological or doctrinal, and that is where we live in a lot of different areas in our life: we are just trying to make a decision, it is not necessarily about the moral or immoral choice, not what is theologically correct versus theologically incorrect, not about being conservative versus liberal; it has to do with non-moral, non-spiritual issues. But they are not totally divorced from applying biblical principles to those conflicts and problems. And the one overarching issue that encompasses both circumstances is a grace-oriented approach.
Grace is one of those biblical words we hear a lot—like holy, like salvation, like saint, like justification. They are words that, because we are so familiar with them, we don’t hear them; they lose their power through familiarity. In the church age, we have this word “grace” that is used by every branch of theology. They all believe in grace. In a theological sense, we know that every world religion, no matter what it is, operates on a quid pro quo concept of God, that God is going to bless me if I do certain things. It is a concept that is equivocal: if I do X, God will do Y. And yet, grace nullifies all of that. That is the radical difference that we have in the Scripture.
Life works on grace. Suppose somebody takes you out to lunch one week. The following week, you feel like you have to return the favor. What if you are grace-oriented? It's nice and good manners if someone takes me out for lunch this week, and I want to return the favor. But somebody may say they don’t want me taking them out. That is grace; you have to get over yourself and let them be gracious, except the grace. That is a radical concept! I am going to do something for you, but I’m not going to let you return the favor because that would break the pattern of grace. So we have to come to understand what grace is. But this concept of works, doing something for something, permeates—and that isn’t saying it is wrong. The quid pro quo is not inherently bad, but it is when we come to theology, and the term that is used in Scripture is the term “works.”
Grace
1. Grace as the Foundation of Salvation
Grace is the cornerstone of our salvation—it overcomes our inherent spiritual deadness and the sin-induced deficit we carry. As seen in passages like Titus 3:5–6 and Ephesians 2:8–9, grace is described as a “gift of God.” This gift is entirely free; nothing is earned in return. However, while we receive grace at no cost, accepting it comes with the responsibility to live according to God’s will. In short, God does the work through grace, and we simply receive it.
2. The Divine Essence of Grace: Love
Grace is rooted in the very character of God. Scripture reminds us in 1 John 4:8 that “God is love.” It is from His unchanging love that the gift of grace flows. Without this divine attribute, grace would lose its meaning, for it is through God’s love that our broken state is redeemed.
3. A Robust Understanding of Love
Defining love goes beyond our everyday, sentimental notion of warmth or affection. True biblical love—modeled by God—is about seeking what is absolutely best for others. This concept is not based on human emotion alone; it incorporates integrity, objective truth, and justice as revealed in Scripture.
Consider that a loving God is also a just God: He demonstrated His love (and His righteousness) by executing severe judgment on those who rebelled (as seen when He dealt with the Israelites following Dathan and Abiram, or in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). Even actions like turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt or the instant death of Uzzah remind us that love, in its fullest sense, is intertwined with divine justice. Our measure of love should be set against God’s Word rather than our personal, often limited, ideas of what is “best.”
4. The Necessity of Developing Core Spiritual Skills
Beyond understanding grace and love, there are five essential spiritual skills we must cultivate in order to thrive in our spiritual lives. These foundational skills prepare us to walk in the freedom and responsibility that grace provides, ensuring that we truly grow into the fullness of God’s calling.
Confession of Sin
Acknowledging our sinfulness is the starting point. We must confess our sins as a necessary step toward spiritual renewal.
Walking by the Spirit
We choose to live in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Since the Spirit operates in harmony with God’s Word, this involves obeying Scripture and maintaining continuous fellowship with God.
The Faith-Rest Drill
This practice combines trust and action. We believe in God’s promises and commands, then “rest” by casting our concerns onto Him—handling only what is our responsibility while trusting Him with everything else.
Grace Orientation
It is essential to shape all aspects of our lives with grace. This starts with understanding the gospel and extends to every interaction—with spouses, children, colleagues, and even within our imperfect systems. Embracing grace means cultivating humility, good manners, kindness, gentleness, and civility in all our dealings.
Doctrinal Orientation
Our thinking must be firmly rooted in the teachings of God’s Word, ensuring that our beliefs and actions align with Scriptural truth.
Now we mention the law of love. The foundational passage in
John 13:34-35
John 13:34-35
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
a. Jesus is saying that the pattern isn’t like in the Old Testament. It is not love your neighbor as yourself; it is love one another as I have loved you. So the stakes are really high. The pattern is perfect. We must love one another as Christ loved us.
b. This exhibits to others the fact that we are Christians. John 15:12, 17. That is a lot of repetition to emphasize this one principle within just a short time, perhaps an hour apart.
Romans 12:10
Romans 12:10
10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
Romans 13:8
Romans 13:8
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Galatians 5:13
Galatians 5:13
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Ephesians 4:2
Ephesians 4:2
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
1 Thessalonians 3:12 & 4:9
1 Thessalonians 3:12 & 4:9
12 And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all, just as we do to you,
9 But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;
1 Peter 1:22; 3:8; 4:8;
1 Peter 1:22; 3:8; 4:8;
22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;
8 And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”
1 John 3:11; 3:23; 4:7, 11, 12;
1 John 3:11; 3:23; 4:7, 11, 12;
11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,
23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.
2 John 5.
2 John 5.
5 And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another.
After reading through the text of Acts 15 and understanding its theological and doctrinal implications, a pattern emerges. They are trying to solve two problems. One is the problem of theology, and that is solved; there is no requirement to be circumcised to be saved. The other problem has to do with people. There was the problem of bringing the people together from different cultures. It was not that it was right or wrong; it was just that they lived very differently, and they had to come together as one in the body of Christ and not make non-issues and non-essentials essential. What do you do to bring people together socially so that they don’t go to war with each other?
In doing that, you have to apply a biblical framework to the issue. It is a decision-making illustration. There is not necessarily a correct answer or a wrong answer. There may be wrong answers and several ways to approach it, but what we see the apostles and pastors doing is that they think through all the issues biblically, wrestling with what the Word of God says, and come out with some suggestions. This isn’t a doctrinal type of issue.
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:22 NASB “Then it seemed good …”
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
The Greek word δοκεω--DOKEO, which basically means to think or to consider. In the active voice, it has an unstated or impersonal use, essentially stating, “it pleased the apostles and the elders.” The apostles and elders aren’t the subject. So, “it was considered good with reference to the apostles and the elders.” It has an active voice verb, so it has this sort of impersonal third-person subject. “… to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.” Notice v. 25, “it seemed good to us.” It is the same word, dokeo.
Acts 15:25
Acts 15:25
25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Acts 15:28
Acts 15:28
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
Acts 15:34
Acts 15:34
34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.
So Silas has to make another decision after they go to Antioch. Is he going to stay there, or is he going to go back to Antioch? Notice that in none of these passages does it say, “And they prayed to God and God told them to do X.” That doesn’t fit the paradigm for many Christians. They want God to tell them how to make every single decision. They are going to pray “until God gives them peace.” But that isn’t what the Scripture says. That isn’t how the apostles operated. They studied the Word and then, based on the Word of God, applied it to a non-moral, non-spiritual issue. They worked with the Word to learn the principles and then made a decision. Silas could go back to Jerusalem or stay in Antioch. God doesn’t care! Do we get up in the morning and say, “God, do you want me to put my right shoe on first or my left shoe?” It doesn’t matter. God says, “I’m going to direct your path. You are going to get where I want you to go because I’ll take you there.” God says to make our decisions based on using the Word of God to the best of our ability, and He will get us where we need to go.
They came to their decision, as evident in three passages. It was very important at that time. It isn’t so important today in terms of the specifics of this because these issues aren’t in our world; it was in their world. What is important is how they made decisions. They decided four things were to be suggested to the Gentiles that they not engage in.
Acts 15:19-20
Acts 15:19-20
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
These four things are repeated three places in Acts.
The first word is the word for “contaminated by idols” or “polluted by idols.” The Greek word ἀλίσγημα--ALISGEMA means pollution related to idols. It describes spiritual uncleanness, contamination, or defilement that results from participating in idolatry. It has to do with ritual contamination, not actual contamination.
The entire Greek phrase is ἀλισγημάτων εἴδωλον—ALISGEMATON EIDOLON, and it is often reduced to the word for idolatry.
That occurs in seven other places in the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 8:1
1 Corinthians 8:1
1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
1 Corinthians 8:4
1 Corinthians 8:4
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.
1 Corinthians 8:7
1 Corinthians 8:7
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:10
1 Corinthians 8:10
10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?
1 Corinthians 10:19
1 Corinthians 10:19
19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?
Revelation 2:14
Revelation 2:14
14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.
Revelation 2:20
Revelation 2:20
20 Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
What is interesting is that if we examine those passages related to idolatry, they each relate not so much to the ritual act of worshipping an idol, but instead to food. Food is in the context of everything.
The issue here in Acts 15 is the same issue as in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. It is a social thing, whether or not eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols: has this been tainted in such a way that prohibits absolutely from eating it? The idea here relates to food contextually. So, if we are looking at that as a word study, this is similar to the issue related to the weaker brother—eating food sacrificed to idols.
This same term also appears in the Apocrypha, specifically in 4 Maccabees 5:1-2, where it describes Antiochus IV's attempt to compel the Jews to eat pork.
4 Maccabees 5:1-2
4 Maccabees 5:1-2
1 The tyrant Antiochus, sitting in state with his counselors on a certain high place, and with his armed soldiers standing around him, 2 ordered the guards to seize each and every Hebrew and to compel them to eat pork and food sacrificed to idols.
Again, it is a context of food. This is essentially a dietary issue, rather than an absolute moral one.
Porneia is the same issue, usually translated as “sexual immorality.” What is interesting is that in the majority of New Testament passages, it seems to have that emphasis on literal sexual immorality or promiscuity. In some of those passages where people think it does, it really relates to the broader sense, which has to do with unfaithfulness to a contractual relationship.
That is what it means in the divorce passages. I don’t think it is talking about sexual immorality or adultery, where you have porneia mentioned there, because of the next point, which is in the Old Testament in the LXX, where the word porneia is used about 50 times, it almost always relates to spiritual unfaithfulness. It is violating a contract. There are a lot of ways to violate a marriage contract other than just sexual immorality, so porneia is a much broader term than μοιχεία MOICHEIA, the word for adultery. It has a broader sense in those passages than just physical sexual immorality. It is not a synonym for μοιχεία .
So the context is really going to determine whether it is talking about a moral problem, or once again, we are dealing with a situation of somehow doing something that has been involved with an idolatrous worship.
Haima is the word for blood. Bloodshed is usually used in relation to murder. There are about four different ways Haima is used, but it is usually in relation to dietary laws again. It does not mean eating rare meat. That was not what was prescribed by the law. What was prescribed by the law was eating meat that had not been properly drained of blood.
This relates to the next word pniktos, which means choked or strangled, where the blood wasn’t drained. In a lot of pagan cultures, they would eat like blood pudding and things like that, where they were eating the blood. Scripture talks about “the life is in the blood.” There was a symbolic significance to that that was prohibited. So the issue: What are they appealing to here for these standards?
Different people will claim that this concept originated from the rabbis in pre-Christian rabbinical thought, or perhaps it can be found in the dietary laws of Leviticus, or it stems from the Noahic covenant. It is likely all three. There are many similarities among the three. Generally, within Jewish culture, there was just a view that you avoided anything that had any association with idolatry. The conclusion we reach is that the source of these prohibitions was related to the Jewish social custom shaped by a combination of rabbinic teachings, the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 17, 18), and the Noahic covenant. These three influences together had developed a mentality among the Jewish background believers where certain social and eating practices by Gentiles were a problem, so that they couldn’t have fellowship around the table. Now that is a big deal. We are Christians. What do we do when we want to celebrate? We eat. These restrictions were designed to help them get together socially without any problems.
Acts 15:23
Acts 15:23
23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
Notice v. 25, “it seemed good to us”;
Acts 15:25
Acts 15:25
25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
v. 28, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 15:28
Acts 15:28
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
These are phrases that they developed as a result of their Bible study. God did not appear to them in a dream and give them the answer to a test question. And that is the same thing for us. God has given us everything we need to conclude what the wise course of action will be in any decision-making that we have to make. But it comes from a study of the Word. Take all of the doctrine that you have had in the past and use that. You pray; you ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and direction, but He is not going to give you the answer. You have to exercise your volition to come up with the answer on your own.
The result: They decide to send Paul, Silas, and others back to Antioch with the answer. Acts 15:22 NASB “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.”
Silas is also known as Silvanus, his Latin name.
Acts 15:30-31
Acts 15:30-31
30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.
“Encouragement” is a word that we find in verse 32. It is the word parakaleo which means to urge someone to do something, to challenge someone to do something, or to point them in the right direction, to give them focus and direction.
Acts 15:32
Acts 15:32
32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.
This is during the transition period of the early church, when the gifts of apostle and prophet were still available. The gift of prophecy isn’t necessarily foretelling the future; it is a revelatory gift from God. The Holy Spirit is working through them, because they don’t have a New Testament yet, to guide them and give them the content of their teaching. “Lengthy message—they didn’t teach a 45-minute Bible class. (Our pastors who have travelled to India, and after three hours of teaching, they were ready to quit, and they were told, “No, no, no, we have travelled 200 miles, we want another three hours. Americans won’t do that. After 30 minutes, it is time to go to the ball game!) The function of the communicative gifts—pastor-teacher, evangelist, prophet—is to teach, to encourage, and to strengthen. The word parakaleo often translates “to challenge people to do what they have learned.” And the word episterizo means to strengthen or support someone in their spiritual life. It is comparable to edifying them, building them up.
We see this emphasized in many passages in Acts.
Act 14:22
Act 14:22
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
Acts 15:41
Acts 15:41
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Acts 16:40
Acts 16:40
40 So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.
Acts 18:23
Acts 18:23
23 After he had spent some time there, he departed and went over the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.
That is a key function of the pastoral ministry: to strengthen and edify. How? By teaching the Word of God.
Acts 15:33-34
Acts 15:33-34
33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles. 34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.
He had an effective ministry he could have their and he felt he would be more effective there than leaving. He receives direction from God, but he decides it is better to stay there. What happens because he stays? Paul needs someone to go with him, and Silas is going to go with Paul. By making a positive decision to remain there, it opens up alternatives and options for him in a few weeks. He is going to travel with the apostle Paul.
We are also told that Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch.
Acts 15:34
Acts 15:34
35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
They are teaching and proclaiming the gospel. In a lot of cases, “the word of the Lord” doesn’t refer to the Bible. The word logos can also mean message. In a lot of cases, it would be better to translate it “the message of the Lord”—with the gospel. That is a specific message. They have a specific message that they are communicating.
Acts 15:36
Acts 15:36
36 Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.”
There we have the word katangello again, which means to proclaim the word of the Lord—the message of God. They don’t have a closed canon yet, so they are not preaching the Bible. They are preaching the message of the Lord; they are teaching and instructing people, as we have seen. Notice: God doesn’t say, “Paul, you need to go back to the cities.” In his maturity, Paul takes the Word and applies it to the situation, which is what they need to do.
Then they get into a kafuffle. Barnabas was determined to take John Mark with them. Remember what happened last time. John Mark was young, and he couldn’t hack it. For some reason, when they left Cyprus and went on the mainland, Mark went home, and Barnabas went on. Whatever the problem was, Paul decided he didn’t want to have to wet nurse Mark anymore, so he didn’t want to go with him. Remember, Barnabas’s name is really a nickname: son of encouragement. Barnabas wants to take along those who are not yet ready, and now he wants to focus on John Mark and help him so that he will grow and mature. But Paul didn’t want to do that, and they really disagree over this; this isn’t just a minor disagreement. Barnabas is going to take John Mark, and he is not backing off. Paul insists that they should not take the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
Acts 15:39
Acts 15:39
39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus;
The word there for “disagreement” is the Greek word παροξυσμός—PAEROXUSMOS=sharp disagreement. This is a strong, heated, emotional argument between Barnabas and Paul. We have the English word "paroxysm," which comes from this. So, the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. They agreed to disagree. There are no harsh words between them. Barnabas remains good friends with Paul. Paul has many good things to say about Barnabas in his subsequent epistles.
Acts 15:40-41
Acts 15:40-41
40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
The interesting thing is that eventually, Mark grew up. Several times in later epistles, Paul is travelling with Mark, and when Paul is in prison in Rome, he calls for Mark to come and visit him.
Eventually, Mark overcame that early growth stage, and he became a vital part of Paul’s entourage and ministry. What we should see here is that they treated this with grace. They had a personal problem; they had a conflict of vision, and they applied grace in how they worked out the problem and divided their labor, allowing them to go in different directions so that it did not become a destructive, divisive factor in the church's ministry.
But it doesn’t mean that they didn’t have strong opinions and that they didn’t express those strong opinions, and that didn’t mean that they didn’t have a heated, emotional argument about what they were going to do. But ultimately, they worked it out under God's authority and dealt with each other in grace. It was not something that they held against each other or harbored mental attitudes about for the subsequent days and years. They moved on, and God used both of them in their ministries, complementing each other.
Sunday, June 22, 2025
Sunday, June 22, 2025
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 15.
What’s up with the Role of Circumcision and the Law? Acts 16:1-5
What’s up with the Role of Circumcision and the Law? Acts 16:1-5
We have an interesting conundrum that is gradually being introduced by Luke at this point.
We start into the second missionary journey. At the end of the first missionary journey Paul wrote one epistle, at the end of the second he wrote two epistles, and at the end of the third he wrote three epistles. The fourth trip was not a missionary journey, it was when he went to Rome, and while he was in Rome he wrote four prison epistles.
When Paul went on his first missionary journey he had as his travelling companions initially Barnabas and Barnabas’s cousin John Mark. John Mark left when they departed from Cyprus and went to the mainland. He couldn’t hack it and so that led to a later problem that occurred when Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with him on the second journey, and so they split up and went their separate ways. Paul went and took Silas with him and Barnabas went with John Mark and went back to do follow up ministry on Cyprus with the churches they had established there.
At the end of the first journey Paul wrote Galatians, which deals with the issue of what is the relationship of the law to salvation? That is the issue that was dealt with at the Jerusalem Council.
We saw that there was a basic problem.
Acts 15:1
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
So they were no longer teaching a grace gospel, they were teaching faith plus circumcision for salvation. That teaching didn’t just go to Antioch; it was permeating the area where Paul had already been and was infiltrating the church in south central Turkey in what was at that time south Galatia. That was why Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians. It was to straighten them out in the problem of law.
When the Jerusalem Council met they concluded that there was no theological reason or basis for insisting that Gentiles be circumcised, that the law should not be a burden for Gentiles. But what were they going to tell Gentiles? How were they going to solve the social problem?
The topic we have to address now is: What then is the role of circumcision and the law? If it is not for salvation, what is it for? This is an important issue because as we shall see as we go through Acts we are going to find Paul observing the law in his life. The conclusion of the matter of the letter that was sent form the leadership in Jerusalem to the church in Antioch was that there were certain prohibitions that Gentiles should follow.
They were related to Jewish social custom shaped by a combination of rabbinic teach, the Mosaic Law, and/or the Noahic covenant. It had become part of the culture of second temple Judaism and the culture of the Jewish people at that time. So if they were going to sit down and have fellowship or go eat with Gentiles this was going to be a fellowship problem, a social problem; it wasn’t a theological issue. So they were told to just avoid these things.
The issue is the same issue that we find in a number of other places in the New Testament that is the application of the law of love. It is not an issue of spirituality or an issue of salvation; but it is an issue of not offending a weaker brother. As a result of this Paul affirms the same position that circumcision is not necessary or required for justification. That is the same message he had in Galatians.
Acts 16:1-5
Acts 16:1-5
1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.
We are introduced here to Timothy. His name is timotheus in the Greek, which means “honored of God.” time is the Greek word for “honor”; theos = God. Paul becomes very close to Timothy. As we read through the New Testament epistles Timothy in mentioned by name by Paul seventeen times. That tells us something of the close relationship of Paul to Timothy. Timothy travels with Paul in his second missionary journey and on his third missionary journey he is going be with him in Rome, and then Paul is going to write two epistles to Timothy. 1 Timothy was written during his first imprisonment in Rome and 2 Timothy during his second imprisonment in Rome. In them Paul is going to give guidance and direction to Timothy as a young man.
2 Timothy was written in about 65 AD. This passage in Acts 16 was about 50 AD, so fifteen years before 2 Timothy. Timothy at this stage is probably around twenty or twenty-five because he is referred to as a young man. In that culture you were young until you were about forty, at which time you became mature, an elder. But you were a young man up to that age. So Timothy is going to be given guidance as a young pastor by the apostle Paul.
Paul led Timothy to salvation on the first missionary journey. This is when Paul would have first met Timothy, his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois. It is mentioned in 2 Timothy 1:5.
2 Timothy 1:5
2 Timothy 1:5
5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.
It was Paul helped them to understand that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah that had been promised and prophesied from the Old Testament. Therefore it was necessary for Jews, even though they had the Law and everything else, to trust now in Jesus as messiah and to believe in Him. This was a godly family.
Because of Paul’s closeness to Timothy, and because he had led him to the Lord and had mentored him throughout his ministry, Paul would refer to Timothy by the endearing term “my son” is 1 Timothy 1:18.
1 Timothy 1:18
1 Timothy 1:18
18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,
But there is a little problem with Timothy in his background. He is the offspring of a mixed marriage. His mother is Jewish and his father is Gentile. This presented a little bit of a problem because his father is a Greek and didn’t want his son to be circumcised. Even today some Greeks hold that circumcision is mutilation and they are strongly against it. According to the rabbinical view of how to determine whether one is Jewish, Jewishness was determined by the mother. If the mother was Jewish then the children were Jewish. It seems that according to biblical genealogy Jewishness is passed on through the male, because that is the focal point in the genealogies. Probably both are true. The lineage is passed on through the father because he is the head of the home. It is doubtful that the genealogies can prove that Jewishness was determined by the mother.
The bottom line for us is that as far as Paul was concerned Timothy was Jewish. And if Timothy as a Jew was going to go with Paul and follow the principle to the Jew first and also to the Greek then Timothy, in order to have a platform for ministry among Jews—in some cases locally where it is known who he is, and that he is of a Greek father and has not been circumcised—he was going to have to be circumcised.
This is an interesting question for us because if circumcision is no longer spiritually significant then why does Paul have Timothy get circumcised? As we look at the New Testament and talk about the Law, the Law is no longer relevant. So why is it that later on we find Paul shaving his head, taking a vow, going to the temple? Is this wrong or are we just looking at this only from a very narrow grid in terms of theological correctness and ignoring ethnic and cultural issues?
The real issue here is that as Jews with a cultural heritage, and with the temple still in operation, there were certain things that they still did culturally. But Paul understands that they don’t have a spiritual significance other than as a reminder of the past and as a visual aid of spiritual truth that has been fulfilled in Christ. So we need to look at this in a little more detail.
Remember that in 2 Timothy 3:15 both the mother and the grandmother had been trained in the Word, and so he knows the Word.
2 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 3:15
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
He has memorized Scripture, probably, which was the standard operating procedure for Jewish children. Now that he is an adult, he has shown great promise and is well spoken of by the brethren. This word “brethren” doesn’t refer in context to Jewish brethren; it refers to those who are also members of the body of Christ. So it is a reference to Christians.
Timothy, as a young man, due to his prior knowledge of Scripture and his spiritual growth and maturity during this time, has gained a very positive reputation among Christians in Lystra and Iconium. So Paul recognizes his ability and wants him to go with him, but to do that, he has to circumcise him.
End of 1st Message
End of 1st Message
This raises the question: What is going on with the circumcision here? If the Law no longer mattered, then why did Paul get Timothy circumcised? There is a reason here for saying “the Law no longer mattered” in this way. It did matter. Paul says in Romans seven that the Law is good and righteous and holy.” It is just not profitable for justification or sanctification. But it is not bad; it is not evil.
The other question to be asked: If Jewishness is no longer relevant, why does it matter? Somehow, in the early church and down through the centuries, we have gotten this idea that because we are in the church age, if you are Jewish and you get saved, ethnicity is irrelevant. Irrelevant for what? That is what we need to ask. It is not absolutely irrelevant; it is irrelevant in terms of justification or sanctification. It is not totally irrelevant. Paul is very clear on this, and we also need to be very clear on this. The fact that somebody is ethnically Jewish is still significant. That is why Paul is having Timothy circumcised. We need to understand this.
This is why there are certain things that Paul does in Acts that some people have thought that he must have been out of fellowship for doing it. Well, the only other option is that Paul must be absolutely out of his mind, because one day he is teaching the gospel of grace and the Law is no longer relevant, and the next day he has taken a vow and shaved his head.
There is a third option, and that has to do with the fact that Paul is doing something that is still legitimate because the temple hasn’t been destroyed yet. He is not doing it because it will justify or sanctify him; he is doing it out of respect for his ethnic and cultural background, as well as for the heritage of the Old Testament.
The Doctrine of Circumcision
1. Circumcision did not begin with Abram in Genesis chapter seventeen. Other cultures practiced circumcision—not a lot but there were, so it is not historically unique to the Jews. But it becomes historically significant and doctrinally or theologically significant to the Jews.
2. God first required circumcision of Abram in Genesis chapter seventeen.
Genesis 17:11
Genesis 17:11
11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
The Hebrew word for covenant is berit. There is a form of the word for the circumcision ritual, and that is the bris. It is the word for covenant. In the act of circumcision, the eight-day-old boy is now in a covenant relationship with God; he has now been brought into that Abrahamic covenant. It is not the Mosaic covenant. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision, not the Mosaic covenant. The sign of the Mosaic covenant was the Sabbath. So getting circumcised isn’t shifting to the Mosaic Law; it is a recognition that as a Jew, a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they were in an eternal covenant with God. It is an eternal, permanent covenant that doesn’t change. So for Jews today, whether they are saved or unsaved, their identification with Abraham is through the Abrahamic covenant and the bris(circumcision). So this is unrelated to the issues of law and legalism in that sense.
3. The New Testament recognizes that circumcision was Abrahamic and not Mosaic.
John 7:22
John 7:22
22 Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.
Who are the fathers? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So Jesus recognized that it was not a Mosaic institution, it was an Abrahamic institution, and that is seen also in Acts 7:8.
Acts 7:8
Acts 7:8
8 Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs.
4. The problem that occurred in terms of theology was that during the period of the second temple, Judaism, circumcision, and other religious aspects of the Mosaic Law began to be seen as being spiritually efficacious. In other words, you had to do them to gain righteousness. It was a pure works system. This is the problem that has infected the former Pharisees in Acts 15, who have become Christians. They are going to teach that you have to be circumcised to be saved.
5. This problem gradually developed through Acts. In Acts 10:45, we start seeing a foreshadowing after Peter went to Cornelius’s household. Word gets out that Peter is eating with the Gentiles.
Acts 10:45
Acts 10:45
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
That word “circumcision” is used in two ways. One way is with legalists, and another way is to refer to Jews as those who are circumcised, which is how it is used here.
Then in Acts 11:2
Acts 11:2
Acts 11:2
2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him,
We haven’t seen that phrase used before, and it is a sort of foreshadowing of the problem that is developing.
6. By 49-50 AD (Acts 15 & 16 ), this had developed into a problem. These Pharisee background Christians are saying that it is necessary to be circumcised to be saved, to get the blessings of the covenant. They are starting to merge faith plus works.
7. Acts 21 is when Paul comes to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey. He has shaved his head and taken a vow. What is that all about? We will cover that when we get there, but he is obviously following tradition. He is not putting himself back under the Law. Paul never fudges with this issue regarding the Law; he is following respect for Jewish tradition and is going to enter the temple, which is still God’s temple. He is going to go through the ritual cleansing because there is nothing wrong with that. He is
Acts 21:15-21
Acts 21:15-21
15 And after those days we packed and went up to Jerusalem. 16 Also some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us and brought with them a certain Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to lodge. 17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
That is their tradition, it is not being said in a bad way. They are not being accused of being Judaisers. Did Paul do that? No. Remember, he had Timothy circumcised. It was not that it was necessary for sanctification or for justification, it was necessary from their social, cultural level. So there were these false charges brought against Paul some seven years later, that he was telling them not to get circumcised. The message of Paul, as we see in Galatians, wasn’t that you shouldn’t get circumcised; it was that circumcision didn’t do anything for you spiritually.
8. Titus, at the same time, Timothy is being circumcised so that he will not create a problem of dissension with the Jews they are ministering to, who were a Gentile and were not compelled to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3). But Timothy was.
9. Look at some of the statements that Paul makes about circumcision.
Galatians 5:2
Galatians 5:2
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
When did he write this? Maybe six months before, he had Timothy circumcised. Is Paul crazy? No, because what he is talking about in Galatians 5:2 is that if you think that if you become circumcised to be saved or sanctified, then Christ isn’t going to profit you
Galatians 5:3
Galatians 5:3
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
But see, that doesn’t apply to Timothy does it? He is not making what appears to be a blanket universal statement here that you shouldn’t get circumcised at all. He is talking about circumcision within the context of Galatians: circumcision is a requirement for salvation or sanctification, not as just an act that has no spiritual significance whatsoever.
Galatians 5:6
Galatians 5:6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised doesn’t matter. That was just a physical thing that had a training aid-like significance. It has nothing to do with spiritual reality. The only thing that matters is faith, the faith-rest drill, working with love in the spiritual life.
Galatians 5:12
Galatians 5:12
12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!
In 1 Corinthians 7:18, which was written after Paul’s second missionary journey,
1 Corinthians 7:18
1 Corinthians 7:18
18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.
He is just saying it doesn’t do anything for you spiritually.
1 Corinthians 7:19
1 Corinthians 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.
This is what matters. He is not talking about the ten commandments because the Law is no longer spiritually significant. He is talking about the commandments in the New Testament.
Then he concludes in Galatians 6:15
Galatians 6:15
Galatians 6:15
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.
What matters is that you are a new creature in Christ ( 1 Corinthians 5:20 ). It is being in Christ that matters. We get “in Christ” at the moment we are saved; it is the baptism by the Holy Spirit.
Galatians 3:26-28
Galatians 3:26-28
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul is making a statement here that when you are in Christ, Jewishness or Gentileness isn’t a factor. Is he saying that it is erased and you are no longer a Jew or a Gentile?
How do we know? “You are neither slave nor free.”
Cf. Philemon.
In Rome, Onesimus becomes a believer. What does Paul do? He says, “You are a believer, you are free. I know your master, he is a believer; you are free.” Paul writes to Philemon and sees that he knows Onesimus has wronged him, but he implores him to forgive him not only for his past actions but also to set him free as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Onesimus’s slave status didn’t change because he became a believer. He is still a slave. If you are a Jew and get saved, you are still a Jew; if you are a Gentile and get saved, you are still a Gentile.
This statement in Galatians is not saying that Jewishness is now irrelevant. That idea has its roots in the origins of replacement theology, dating back to the late 1st century and early 2nd century, when some church fathers began to argue that because the Jews rejected Christ, they are no longer Jews; the real Israelites are Christians, who are the heirs to the promises. That is the first step on the path to anti-Semitism.
What we are talking about here is that as many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, are therefore all one in Christ, and distinctions for spirituality do not continue. Men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile have the same access. But in the Old Testament under the Law, they had a different access. We see the same thing in Colossians 3:10-11
Colossians 3:10-11
Colossians 3:10-11
10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
These distinctions are irrelevant in Christ in terms of our relationship to God, in terms of prayer, and in terms of living our spiritual life.
1 Corinthians 12:13
1 Corinthians 12:13
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
The Gospel Goes to Europe: Demonism and Fortune telling. Acts 16:6
The Gospel Goes to Europe: Demonism and Fortune telling. Acts 16:6
Acts 16:6
Acts 16:6
6 Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia.
Asia was the region in the far west of Turkey. The Holy Spirit stops them, but we don’t know how He stopped them. Did he give them direct revelation? Was it because every time they tried to make a right turn, somebody had a donkey cart that was turned over, and they couldn’t go down that road anymore? We don’t know, although Paul, as an apostle, was receptive to direct divine guidance, as we are not, because revelation has ceased. However, we are not told, so it is incorrect to infer from the text what is not explicitly stated.
What is interesting is that Asia is where all of the cities were that were the recipients of the seven letters to the churches at the beginning of Revelation. In two years, Paul is going to return to Ephesus in Asia and establish a school, and he will send his students out to preach the gospel and establish churches throughout Asia. But here we have merely an issue of the Holy Spirit saying He has a priority and they were going to go to Europe, not into Asia, yet.
Acts 16:7
Acts 16:7
7 After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them.
Two words here: koluo, which means to hinder or to prevent, to stop; and eao, which means to permit, to allow or to pass over—two different ways to express the fact that the Holy Spirit stopped them from going in that direction.
Acts 16:8-9
Acts 16:8-9
8 So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”
Troas is a name for ancient Troy of the Trojan wars and the Odyssey and the Iliad, but it was built 25 miles south of the ancient site of Troy. From there, God gave Paul directions in a vision at night, one of the numerous ways in which God reveals Himself. It is specific.
A man appears to him, but the first convert he encounters once he arrives in Greece is a woman. So why doesn’t a woman appear? Because this is just a generalized appearance, it does not indicate a specific individual identity. A man appears just as a representative of a population.
Acts 16:10
Acts 16:10
10 Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.
We know of this same event in Troas by the apostle Paul in his second epistle to the Corinthians.
In 2 Corinthians 2:12 he says,
2 Corinthians 2:12
2 Corinthians 2:12
12 Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened to me by the Lord,
The way in which this door was opened was through this vision.
2 Corinthians 2:13
2 Corinthians 2:13
13 I had no rest in my spirit, because I did not find Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I departed for Macedonia.
Acts 16:11
Acts 16:11
11 Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis,
Samothrace was the site of a mystery religion that worshipped twin gods. That was their pagan background. It is a very mountainous island. They spend a brief time in Neapolis before heading on to Phillipi which was called by Luke a “leading city.”
Acts 16:12
Acts 16:12
12 and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days.
Paul picks significant cities. What we will learn about Philippi is that it was also a Roman colony, and so when they go there, they are going to have a significant audience of people. Paul’s strategy appears to be targeting significant towns located on trade routes. When he establishes a congregation, those congregations will send out missionaries to the surrounding areas.
We are told of three incidents in this section of Acts dealing with their visit. The first has to do with the conversion of Lydia, the second with casting out the demon from the slave girl, and then, after the riot occurs as a result of that and some other things, Paul and Silas are thrown in jail. There is an earthquake, God rescues them, and the jailer asks the famous question: What must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:13
Acts 16:13
13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.
On a Sabbath day, a group of Jews would gather together for the reading of the Torah and prayer. In a Jewish community, there had to be ten men in order to have what they called a minion. They had to have a minion in order to form a synagogue. There were not ten men, and so there was not apparently a synagogue in Philippi, so these God-fearing women (the same term as used to describe Cornelius) had come to study the Torah, seeking the truth from God. Paul, on a Sabbath day, decides the best place to go is outside the city, which is where he would expect a group of Jews, if there wasn’t a synagogue, to meet for prayer. He is not disappointed. A group of women gathered by the riverside, engaged in prayer, and then sat down to speak with the other women.
Acts 16:14
Acts 16:14
14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
A seller of purple cloth means that Lydia had a business. It was a rare and expensive cloth made from a shellfish that was crushed and used to form the purple dye. It was rare and very expensive because it required a large quantity of shellfish to produce a small amount of dye. This was the general attire worn for royal purple in the ancient world. Lydia was actually from Thyatira, which was located in what was then the province of Asia, across the Aegean Sea in what is now Turkey.
The word used here for worshipping God is sebo, and this is where we get the word eusebeia, which is often translated “spiritual life.” The root has to do with one’s relationship to God, their reverence or worship of God. It is not the word proskuneo, which means to bow down and worship, emphasizing submission. sebo is a word that emphasizes reverence for God.
Then we are told
14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
A while back, we discussed the Calvinistic doctrine of efficacious grace. If that is the mentality that one has, if that is how one is predisposed to handle passages like that, then they would look at that and say she is elect, and because she is elect, God opens up her heart so she can understand the gospel. For many Calvinists who believe regeneration precedes faith, they would also be tempted to see that opening of her heart as regeneration. But we would point out that opening the heart is not regeneration; it simply means preparing the mind because she has to hear the gospel.
We need to look at two passages to help us think through this topic. The first is in John 16.
John 16:7
John 16:7
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
When He has come, what is the Holy Spirit going to do?
John 16:8
John 16:8
8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
That word “convict” is ελεγχω--ELENCHO, and it means to make an indisputable, irrefutable case for something.
The Holy Spirit is going to be the one, not you, not I, who closes the deal. It is the Holy Spirit who is going to take from what we say (we say a lot of stuff that is not relevant) and convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He is not going to tell them that they need to invite Jesus into their heart. He is not going to make them feel anything; He is going to take a rational case for something. What He is going to use to do this is what you and I communicate when we give the gospel to somebody. There are folk who don’t give the Holy Spirit much to work with, but because He is omnipotent, He can get the point across anyway. We should recognize that this is what the Holy Spirit is emphasizing in an evangelistic way.
Who is He convicting? He is convicting the world. And it is not a selective concept here. He will convict the inhabited world, the same world that God loved in such a way that He sent His only begotten Son. He will convict the world of sin. Some folks get a little upset if you think that, in communicating the gospel, you need to talk about sin. There are two ways to talk about sin when communicating the gospel: the right way and the wrong way. The wrong way is to make sin the issue—you are a liar, a homosexual, a murderer, a gossip, and you have to feel sorry for your sin, you have to repent of your sin. That is the wrong way. In a gospel presentation, the focus isn’t on what the person has done as a sinner. Condemnation is not because of their sins; their condemnation is because of Adam’s original sin. Adam’s sin is what was transmitted to us. We received the imputation of Adam’s original sin; that is the foundation of our condemnation. But sin means we are spiritually dead, and until a person recognizes that they are lost, they are not going to realize that they have to be saved. They have to understand their condition of being spiritually dead, and that brings sin into the topic. But you are not getting it into the topic to condemn them for their personal sins, you are bringing it in so that they understand that we are all in a condition of spiritual death and therefore have to have someone else save us.
Unless a person recognizes that they have already gone under the water two times and the third time means they have drowned, they are not going to grab for that life preserver if they still think in arrogance that they are going to be able to survive, even if they don’t know how to swim. You have to recognize that you are lost and in total, desperate need of salvation before you are going to say you want to trust in Christ as savior. But that is the limited role of presenting sin in the gospel.
The first thing the Holy Spirit will do is convict the world of sin. We are incapable of saving ourselves because we are under condemnation. Second. He is going to convict the world of righteousness. The contrast there is between those two elements. The opposite of sin is righteousness, that which conforms to the righteous standard of God. So in the Holy Spirit’s ministry He is going to convict the unbeliever that they are spiritually dead ad that the only way to have spiritual life is to have righteousness. The third thing He is going to convict them of is judgment: that the sin penalty has been paid.
John goes on to explain this.
John 16:9
John 16:9
9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
The focus there is not on personal sin, the focus is on the one thing that they have not done in order to be saved, which is to believe. They haven’t believed in Christ so therefore they are still spiritually dead.
John 16:10
John 16:10
10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
What that refers to is that with the ascension, Christ can ascend to the Father because He has completed the payment for sin on the cross. It is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed to us for justification. During the time on the cross, our sin, our unrighteousness, was imputed to Him so that He paid that penalty.
That leads to the third aspect of the Holy Spirit’s conviction
John 16:11
John 16:11
11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
This is a perfect tense verb; it is completed in the past on the cross. The ruler of this world is another title for Satan. And so what we see here is that the one who convicts/convinces somebody of the need for salvation, who makes that irrefutable, indisputable case, is the Holy Spirit.
But the unbeliever doesn’t have the Holy Spirit in any way, shape, or form. The unbeliever is spiritually dead, which refers to the fact that the immaterial component of his nature that enabled the soul to have a relationship with God is not present.
1 Corinthians 2:14
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The high point is understanding what it means when it refers to the things of the Spirit of God. Verse 9 is a paraphrase from two Old Testament passages out of Isaiah.
1 Corinthians 2:9
1 Corinthians 2:9
9 But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
That means that whatever Paul is talking about here in terms of “these things,” it is information that can’t be gained through eyesight or hearing. In other words, empirical data doesn’t get you the things of God.
‘… AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND {which} HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN …’
That is man’s autonomous thinking ability—rationalism.
‘… ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
What is the “all”? That is defined in the next verse
1 Corinthians 2:10
1 Corinthians 2:10
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
What has He revealed through the Holy Spirit? He has revealed the content of the Bible, special revelation. The deep things of God are related to the thinking of God.
1 Corinthians 2:11
1 Corinthians 2:11
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
Here, the “things of God” go back to the content of biblical revelation.
All through here, when we look at the word “things” (neuter plural in the Greek), it all goes back to the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. That is the Word of God in context. What cannot be learned from rationalism or empiricism is revealed objectively through the Scriptures through God the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Verse 14 says that the natural man does not receive these things. The “natural” man is the Greek word psuchikos from the noun psuche, which means soul. It is given an adjectival ending, which means it refers to a specific type of person. So it is a ‘soulish’ man. But what he is lacking is supplied in context, and that is something that is also defined here as “spirit.” The word “spirit” [pneuma] can mean a lot of different things. Where it is used here, it indicates this component of man’s immaterial makeup that enables his soul—made up of his self-consciousness, mentality, conscience, and volition—to relate to God. When man sinned and became spiritually dead, he lost that component; it died, it disappeared, it was no longer functional. His soul became independent of God. And it wasn’t until he was regenerate, born-again, and something was positively given (the spirit) that it once again enabled him to think in relation to God, choose in regard to God, have values of right and wrong in relation to God, and to focus on that element in his soul that was related to God: God consciousness rather than just self-consciousness.
And so what we see here is that the natural man can’t understand the things of the Spirit of God; he can’t understand the gospel. When we put that together with John chapter 16 what we realize is that the only way the unbeliever can com e to understand the things of the Spirit is if God the Holy Spirit functions like a human spirit to open up the mind of the individual with positive volition so that they are enabled to understand the gospel. But the Holy Spirit doesn’t believe it for them. He doesn’t regenerate them apart from faith. They must first understand the gospel. It is the Holy Spirit who acts as the one who makes it clear.
Someone may say that it is clear and then continue to reject it. They continue to be spiritually dead. Another person may say it is wonderful. Some people have a perfect understanding of the gospel, but they don’t want to believe it. They have heard it so much that they can articulate it so clearly, it is surprising.
That is what was happening when it says of Lydia, “The Lord opened up her heart.” The heart is the thinking part of the soul. She could understand, and her response, with volition, is that she is going to heed the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
End of 2nd Service 6/22/2025
End of 2nd Service 6/22/2025
Sunday, June 29, 2025
Sunday, June 29, 2025
The Gospel Goes to Europe: Demonism and Fortune telling. Acts 16:6
The Gospel Goes to Europe: Demonism and Fortune telling. Acts 16:6
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 16
Let’s catch back up, returning to our context.
Acts 16:11-14
Acts 16:11-14
11 Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:15
15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
Once again, we see the Apostle Paul baptizing immediately. He is not waiting. Notice how Luke doesn’t beat anybody over the head with it; he states that this is the normal course of events for someone after they are saved.
15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
There is a little controversy that has come up among some on the free grace camp. It is that belief [pisteuo] etymologically derives from the same root as peitho, another word for “persuade” and that they really mean the same thing, that faith is just being persuaded.
Faith is more than being persuaded. When we read, “she persuaded us,” it can’t be read as “she believed us,” or “she believed in us.” Belief is something that is after persuasion. Persuasion is when you are presented with facts, and you exercise your volition and decide you are going to be persuaded; the facts convince you.
Acts 16:16
Acts 16:16
16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling.
This is one of several key passages in the New Testament related to demon possession. The slave girl was making a lot of money for them, and she would tell people’s fortunes. We are not sure how she did that, but she possessed a remarkable ability to predict the future.
Note: Just because someone is involved in some activity doesn’t necessarily mean they are demon possessed. But if a person is an unbeliever and is operating on carnality, that person is under demonic influence. It is crucial to understand the distinction between demonic influence and demonic possession. Demon influence describes the fact that a person’s thought systems are affected and directed by the views and ideas of demons. And demons have the same ideas and values as Satan. What is Satan’s primary orientation? Arrogance. Human viewpoint is just another way of talking about satanic viewpoint or demonic viewpoint; it is all just cosmic thinking. To the degree that any of us are thinking in the way of the world’s system, we are operating under demon influence. We must be careful to understand what demonic influence is. In one sense, we are all demon-influenced to the degree that we operate on cosmic thinking.
Demon possession is something else. Demon possession is when a demon takes residence inside the body of someone and controls them from within. When we see the word “possess,” there is no equivalent word in the Greek. There is not a single word in the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament that can be conceivably translated as " possess. What is the primary meaning you think of when you think of the word “possess.” Ownership. Ownership is one meaning to possession. Another meaning for possession is to be indwelt. But demons don’t own even the people they “possess.” That is a false concept. So, possession is really a poor English word to use in translation. The word in the Greek doesn’t have anything to do with ownership; it has to do with an indwelling spirit.
Demonism and Fortune Telling. Acts 16:6
Demonism and Fortune Telling. Acts 16:6
One of the hardest things for anybody in any kind of argument is to challenge somebody on the basis of their experience.
I’ve heard people say, “Well I was in Tegucigalpa, Argentina witnessing to somebody who said they were a believer in Christ, and they started manifesting all kinds of demonic threats; so obviously Christians can be demon possessed.”
Forms of that narrative are very common. Then there are others who want to extrapolate everything to always identify problems in terms of evil spirits. That is true, that it is a component of everything in creation because of the angelic rebellion against God, but the Bible doesn’t present everything that way. We understand human volition, human interaction. And on the other side, there are too many Christians who want to limit everything to human interaction and human circumstances, not recognizing the influence of the demonic. So, there is a balance there between overloading our sense by saying everything is related to demons, everything is related to evil spirits, everything is related to Satan, and that everything is just related to human negative volition and the sin nature.
Ultimately, it is true that all evil comes from Satan. So, in some sense, we could think of Satan as the one who is behind every attack against Christians. But by saying that, it also communicates an idea that Satan is omnipresent or omniscient, which is false. Therefore, there must be a balance in all of this, without sacrificing different aspects of truth. Often, an error occurs because one area of truth is overemphasized at the expense of another area of truth.
Another thing happened in Acts 16. The second personage emphasized in Paul’s ministry is a slave girl. In Greek culture and some of Jewish culture, some of the most looked down upon people in society were women and slaves. The first person to come to salvation in Philippi was Lydia, a woman merchant, and the second was a slave girl who had a spirit of divination.
Acts 16:16
Acts 16:16
16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling.
This was probably the next Sabbath, the first being the one where Paul met Lydia.
“… a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us …”
This is the foundation of a problem we have that has developed in the whole theology of demonism and demon possession. In English, we have developed a vocabulary where we refer to these phenomena as either demon possession or demon influence. The phrase “demon possession” is a poor word choice in English today. At the time of the King James translation, the concept of possession implied someone inhabiting something. That fits the biblical idea of demon possession, which is defined as a demon internally controlling a person or taking up residence inside a person’s body. So, demon possession as the idea of inhabiting something is a valid concept.
But too often today, the word “possess” doesn’t convey that nuance in modern language. Possess usually conveys the idea of ownership, and so many people have distorted views of this doctrine from Scripture because when they hear that word, they think ownership. They think demon possession means the demon or Satan owns the person. That is not the idea from the Greek at all. In Greek, there is no word for possession at all. That was just an English word that was used to try to convey the idea of demonic habitation within a body. So that is not a good choice of words when trying to reflect the meaning and intent of the original manuscript text.
“… who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling.”
Now, the word in this verse, translated in some versions as “possessed with a spirit of divination” is literally translated from the Greek “having,” the Greek word echo, which means to have something.” So, if you have a Bible, you have a Bible; if you have a car, you have this, you have that - it is something you possess. So it is something she had. It is a broad term, not overly technical.
“… having a puthonos spirit,”
The Greek word for python, Πύθωνος [PUTHONOS] A large python was also a symbol of this spirit, especially at the Oracle of Delphi, where a priestess at the temple in southern Achaia kept this python with her. In the legend, the python was destroyed by the god Apollo. So, this became a term in Greek for someone who was demon possessed, someone who was controlled internally by a demon.
In Delphi, what would happen was that the priestess would take her seat over a hole in the ground, and smoke would come up through this hole. When this happened, this spirit would control her, and she would utter these prophecies, and she would do it in some ecstatic utterance. It wasn’t a known language; nobody could understand her. Then it would be translated afterward. This is typical of the counterfeit of a gift that God gives later, the gift of tongues. It was no wonder that the Corinthians, who were just across the Gulf of Corinth from Delphi, were confused about the gift of tongues because it was like what appeared to be going on with the Oracle of Delphi. This is the same language used to describe the activity of this Python. This caused confusion throughout the Greek world due to their pagan religion.
Acts 16:17
Acts 16:17
17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.”
First person plural. Luke is writing, so this indicates that Luke is with him and has been with him since Troas. This includes the party of Silas and Timothy as well.
“… she kept crying out, saying, ‘These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.’”
This demon-possessed girl is making a true statement. But the apostle Paul doesn’t want his message validated by a demon. He understands what is really going on. Even though what she is saying is true, he doesn’t need to have his message and his apostleship validated by this priestess of false religion. Eventually, he becomes very irritated at this.
Acts 16:18
Acts 16:18
18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.
Notice in these contexts where a demon is cast out that Paul, and in the Gospels, Jesus, addresses the spirit. “Spirit” is the Greek word pneuma, the same word used of the Holy Spirit, and it is used to describe various attitudes, so the word has a lot of different nuances.
We will find today in what we might call the doctrines of neo-spiritual warfare is these ideas that you don’t really have a problem with lust for alcohol, a problem with the sin of drunkenness, the sin of anger, the sin of bitterness; you have a spirit of bitterness, a spirit of anger, a spirit of jealousy; that is not really your fault, it is a demon that is influencing you. So, in a lot of the neo-spiritual warfare terminology, it is basically the old Flip Wilson line: The devil made me do it! The solution is to cast out the demon that is within me, and then I won’t have this sin problem anymore. What this reveals is a shallow view of sin and total depravity. And that comes out of the Arminian theology of Pentecostalism. It has always had a problem with that: It is never my fault, it is something else, because if I am redeemed, I shouldn’t do that. It is this false belief that Christians aren’t going to be susceptible to certain kinds of sins.
We see a similar problem at the other end of the spectrum with Lordship salvation. For them, it is not that you lose your salvation, but that you were never truly saved. Christians have always had this problem with Christians who commit horrible sins or continue to sin after they are saved. And yet the Bible makes it clear that Christians continue to sin unless they are going to take in the Word of God and walk by the Holy Spirit.
So, Paul addresses the demon and says,
“I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!”
So it is not Paul addressing the issue; he doesn’t have an attitude that he is doing something. It is in the name of the Lord Jesus that the demon is commanded to come out of her. The language here to come out is the Greek word exerchomai—the verb erchomai, which means to come, and the preposition ex which is affixed as a prefix to the word, and it means to come out. That is very important because the technical language in demon possession is the language of going in and coming out. “…And it came out at that very moment.” Twice Luke uses the term exerchomai, emphasizing that what is happening here, having a Πύθωνος PUTHONOS spirit, is the same as having this spirit indwelling within the person. Because what the demon must do is come out of the person.
Once this spirit evacuates her body, then she doesn’t have the power to tell the future anymore. She is left empty but freed spiritually. She is no longer under the dominion and control of this evil spirit. But this now affects her masters because they have lost the golden goose and there is no more money coming in.
Acts 16:19
Acts 16:19
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.
Activities that are associated with demonism. Over the years, we have all heard and read about certain kinds of activities that Satan sponsors. They are mentioned in the Scripture as different activities that are associated with demonism. However, in what is rightly called pop-demonism, it is often presented that if you get involved in these activities, you can pick up a demon. If you go into a séance with someone who is bringing up the dead, that is demonic activity, and you may walk out of there with a demon. If you get involved in reading horoscopes, you may pick up a demon.
But demonic influence is everywhere. We are surrounded by demons and demonic influence all the time. There is a demonic influence on the TV shows we watch, the news shows that we watch; it is everywhere. Demonic influence is the arrogant thinking of Satan, as we will see. It is not necessarily the kind of stuff that is portrayed in films like The Exorcist. Satan wants people to believe that he can offer them happiness, joy, and prosperity. All this superstitious nonsense that is seen in films and some Christian circles is just a diversion. We must go back and understand that certain activities are associated with demonism that may give opportunity for demons to express themselves in divination and other such things. However, when we examine some of the examples in Scripture of a child being controlled by a demon, being thrown into the fire, the child was likely not consulting a fortune teller to have his fortune told. He wasn’t involved with a Ouija board. He had been demon possessed from a very young age, since infancy.
The fallen world is under the control of Satan. What opens people to the demonic is carnality. We are born spiritually dead and are under the power and enslaved to our sinful nature, and so any of us comes under the influence of demonism from the moment that we are born. Some things happen for unbelievers that may lead to certain kinds of demon control or deep demonic possession. I think it is very rare and not a significant problem, because it is not even mentioned in any of the epistles in the New Testament. The Scripture is sufficient to teach us how to handle every problem. These church age epistles are written to teach Christians how to handle all the problems of life. If demon possession for Christians is the problem that many people today say it is, then why is the Bible so loudly silent? If it were a problem, it would be mentioned at least once in the epistles, but it is not mentioned at all. If it is not mentioned at all, what we can conclude is that it is not an issue.
The only times we see these huge activities of demons are during the incarnation and during the end times, specifically during Daniel’s seventieth week, known as the Tribulation. We don’t see this happening very often, except for a few instances in Acts. We see other kinds of supernatural phenomena—miracles, the intervention of God, and the intervention of the Holy Spirit—which occur with greater frequency at the beginning of the book. Still, if we track their mention as we go through Acts, they become less and less and less until the last ten chapters or so, where there is virtually no mention of these kinds of things.
Idolatry is the worship of any god, self, material things, greed, or various deities (including Allah and the god of Mormonism).
Thought: Allah is a cognate of the Hebrew word El, the plural of which is Elohim. What is the name of the god that the Mormons worship? Elohim, which is a generic term for God, similar to the English word "God." Yahweh has a distortion, Jehovah—the Hebrew is four consonants (JHWH). If you take Hebrew from anybody who is Jewish, they pronounce the W as a V; they don’t pronounce it as a W. In Hebrew, it is YHWH, but it is usually transliterated as YHVH. That is where you get this Jehovah. In the Hebrew Bible, there were no vowels. The Masoretes placed the vowels from the Hebrew word Adonai under the consonants for Yahweh, reminding the reader not to mention the name of God but to read Adonai instead. In contemporary Judaism, it is more common to use "Hashem" than "Adonai." So Jehovah is a mix of the consonants of Yahwehand the vowels of Adonai.
Interestingly, the term Elohim is the foundation for both the god of Islam and the god of Mormonism. It is just another idolatrous system.
What does the Bible say about idolatry?
Exodus 20:3-5
Exodus 20:3-5
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Romans 1:25 talks about the pagan masses of those who have rejected the invisible witness of God, His creation, and says,
Romans 1:25
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
That is the basic definition of idolatry—worshipping something in creation, whether it is self, your ideas, something you made out of wood, metal, or stone. You are worshipping something: nature, money, intellectual ideas; something like that. But the worship of idols is not neutral. It is not just a stone, a wooden thing that has no significance. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:19
1 Corinthians 10:19-20
1 Corinthians 10:19-20
19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.
There is something associated with those false gods: demons. If you are worshipping a false god you are buying into a demonic system of worship, and many of these false systems have their ideas and their powers coming ultimately from demons.
Demons are fallen angels. They were originally created holy and righteous with all of the angels. The highest of the angels, Lucifer, when he rebelled against God, influenced one third of the angels to follow him in his rebellion against God. So this rebellion, this antagonism to the authority of God, is at the core of demonism. It is the core of demonic thinking, the core of anything that is satanic. So the worship of any kind of false god is in rebellion against God, and therefore it is demonic and is associated with demons and demonism. Paul says,
1 Corinthians 10:21
1 Corinthians 10:21
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.
Idolatry is prohibitive. Everybody has been involved in idolatry. Everybody has worshipped self, money, or something in the creation at some point for some reason. The basic orientation of the sin nature is idolatry. We are all involved in some demon influence. Any form of human thought system that is not related to the one true living God, any human thought system that isn’t biblical, is in fact the worship of demons and is demon-influenced thought. Those are the only options, because what is at the root of the worship of God is humility toward God, and anything else is idolatry. It is the thinking of Satan and is comparable to the rebellion of the demons.
We see this in 1 Samuel 15. The background is Saul’s rebellion against God, which has finally come to its climax in his life. His sinful nature has increasingly dominated Saul for almost 20 years. He was never really focused on his relationship with God, and he is in a battle where God directs him to destroy all of the Amalekites, a traditional enemy of Israel, including the animals. This was the last part of the biblical holy war that began with Joshua’s destruction of the Canaanites at the beginning of Joshua. But what does Saul do? He kills most everybody, but he keeps a few alive, including their king, Agag, and some of their cattle. He couldn’t figure out why he had to kill everyone.
Samuel is God’s enforcer of the law. That was the role of the prophet. He kills Agag and then says to Saul:
1 Samuel 15:23
1 Samuel 15:23
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king.”
Why is rebellion like the sin of witchcraft?” It is because Satan’s original sin was rebellion against the authority of God. That is what is at the root of everything. That is at the root of satanic thought. Satanic influence affected Adam and Eve in the Garden. Just think about it. What happens in the Garden of Eden? Satan comes along and possesses or indwells this beautiful creature, comes up and talks to Eve, and says, “Well, did God really say this?” This is satanic influence—demon influence in its initial form in the Garden of Eden. The result of it is sin.
Whenever we are influenced to think like Satan thinks, in arrogance and antagonism towards God and rebellion, it is demonism, demon influence. Demonism is a broad term; it covers demonism as well as demon possession. At the low end of the spectrum, it is a form of demon influence to act like Satan and think like Satan.
“And insubordination [stubbornness] is as iniquity and idolatry.”
Stubbornness is resisting the authority of God. Then the condemnation:
“Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from {being} king.”
This is 1 Samuel 15. Saul doesn’t die until the end of 1 Samuel when he commits suicide on Mount Gilboa. So, this connects us to the principle: Any thought system that rejects the authority of God is demonic. It is the rejection of the one true, living God and therefore is the worship of demons (witchcraft: demon influence thought).
When God and His control of history are rejected (i.e., in the pagan, unbelieving world) and that vacuum is created where God isn’t in control anymore, someone has to find some way to control. Otherwise, life is unbearably chaotic. And we feel that there must be some control. As part of that, idolatrous humans seek other avenues to try to regain control of their lives. This may take a number of different forms (and does), but some forms are more overtly demonic than others. Among these are various forms of fortune telling. We want to know the future so that we can control what happens. If something bad is going to happen, we want to try to control things so something good will happen instead. If God is not in control, we have to be in control—just a bunch of control freaks.
Divination is the attempt to foresee or foretell future events in order to control the circumstances of one’s life. Forms of divination include astrology, dousing (using branches of a tree to foretell the future), tarot cards, reading horoscopes, necromancy, and other things.
One example of pagan divine guidance through demonism given in the Old Testament is when Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, has just significantly defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish. The question for him was whether he should give chase and pursue the defeated Egyptian Army, or besiege Jerusalem. So, he called for his wise men to come and tell him about the future.
Ezekiel 21:21
Ezekiel 21:21
21 For the king of Babylon stands at the parting of the road, at the fork of the two roads, to use divination: he shakes the arrows, he consults the images, he looks at the liver.
The prohibitions of Scripture reflect reality. It is not just about Mosaic Law; this reflects the universal principle embodied in the Mosaic Law because it relates to the overall universal problem that we face in this life: living in the devil’s world as part of the angelic conflict.
Leviticus 19:26
Leviticus 19:26
26 ‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor shall you practice divination or soothsaying.
Deuteronomy 18:10-11
Deuteronomy 18:10-11
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
Leviticus 19:31
Leviticus 19:31
31 ‘Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 20:27
27 ‘A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their blood shall be upon them.’ ”
Divination was widely practiced in the ancient world. Today, we have many of the same kinds of things going on. Many of them have been debunked. In America, since the mid-nineteenth century, there has been a rise in the popularity of spiritism.
Another form of divination exposed in the Bible was that of necromancy, which is consulting the dead through mediums and witches. Two verses from the Old Testament prohibit this:
Isaiah 8:19
Isaiah 8:19
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?
In Hebrew, the word was ob (spirit), translated with the Greek word engastromuthos, which conveyed the idea of throwing the voice.
Isaiah 29:4
Isaiah 29:4
4 You shall be brought down, You shall speak out of the ground; Your speech shall be low, out of the dust; Your voice shall be like a medium’s, out of the ground; And your speech shall whisper out of the dust.
Israel is condemned because of going to mediums and wizards trying to find help from somewhere other than the Bible.
This sets us up now to understand one of the great episodes from the Old Testament, which is when Saul went to the witch at Endor to summon Samuel.
Demonism Possession and Demon Influence. Acts 16:16-20
Demonism Possession and Demon Influence. Acts 16:16-20
Why was this such a significant issue in the Gospel period as well as in the period of Acts? Some people were presented to Christ—some stories, only about eight or nine distinct episodes that we are told about—and we are also told in some general statements that people brought the sick, the lame, the blind, and the demon-possessed to be healed. That word “healed” was generally a broad word, and it covered the “casting out of a demon,” a technical phrase that should always be used. Not an exorcism because an exorcism is a word only used by pagans who were using forms of magical incantation or ritual to free somebody from demon possession. Exorcism was never used in any context related to Jesus or the apostles in casting out a demon.
The issue of demon possession is one of fear. We fear losing control. As we age, we lose control over many things. We live through life in many circumstances around us that cause us to be fearful because we are not in control of many of them. And to have a being that we are totally unfamiliar with somehow enter into our body and take over has to be one of the scariest, most frightful things anyone could encounter. And yet what we see is that Jesus is in complete control. He has authority over even the evilest forces of Satan, and He can deliver us. If Jesus Christ can deliver the unbeliever from these circumstances, then there is no other circumstance that we are going to face as believers that we should be fearful of. Because this demonstrates the power and authority Jesus Christ has over some of the most extreme types of things that can happen to human beings, and therefore the kinds of things we face on a day-by-day basis pale in significance. So, it is an a fortiori argument: If Jesus can have control over the demons and Satan, and can cast out demons, then Jesus has the power to deal with any lesser issue in our lives.
Behind much of pagan religions and pagan idols is a demon. There is an association there. The views, theology of the idol, and the false religion are the theology of the demon. Demonic thinking is equivalent to human viewpoint thinking or religious thinking that is contrary to the Bible. The idea that for something to be demonic, it has to be overtly associated with the occult or witchcraft or something like that is extremely superficial. Anything that expresses a human viewpoint, utopian mentality, expresses a demonic or satanic viewpoint. It is just packaging it in an attractive package, and it doesn’t have to be something like The Exorcist for it to be demonic. In fact, the liberation theology of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preached from the pulpit when Barack Obama attended that church in Chicago was some of the most perverse forms of demonic philosophy and thought that could come out of any pulpit. All liberation theology is grounded in Marxism. It is a Marxist distortion and counterfeit of Christian theology. It is at the very root of replacement theology, as well as being expressed in Palestinian theology.
When God and His control of history are rejected, then idolatrous humans seek other avenues for control of their chaotic lives, and they turn in one form or another to that which is demonic. All forms of divination somehow connect to a demonic worldview, a demonic concept where somehow man can control his destiny and find out about the future, totally apart from God.
Another form of divination that is exposed in the Bible is necromancy—getting in touch with the spirits of the dead to find out what is going on in the other world, find out the future, and find out things that are unknown to us either through divine revelation or through rationalism or experience. This is described in Isaiah 8:19
Isaiah 8:19
Isaiah 8:19
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?
Another verse which tells us about the operation of these spiritists, the mediums and witches, is Isaiah 29:4
Isaiah 29:4
Isaiah 29:4
4 You shall be brought down, You shall speak out of the ground; Your speech shall be low, out of the dust; Your voice shall be like a medium’s, out of the ground; And your speech shall whisper out of the dust.
Both of these passages are in context where Israel is being condemned by the prophet Isaiah because they have become so involved in demonism, witchcraft, and mysticism that they have completely become spiritually blind and darkened. Speaking out of the ground was the role of the demon. The medium would call upon the dead person, and (like a ventriloquist), a voice would come up out of the ground. This was called an Ob demon, translated into the Greek as engastrimuthos.
This brings us to one of the key episodes in the Old Testament with King Saul and the witch of Endor. Saul’s devotion to God was relatively short-lived. It wasn’t long before Saul became involved in a great deal of carnality and disobedience to God. He refused to destroy and annihilate the Amalekites. So the prophet Samuel came to him and said that his sin was like the sin of rebellion and like the sin of witchcraft, and because of that, God was going to take the kingdom from him and give it to somebody else. In the very next chapter, Samuel anointed David to be the next king of Israel. But being anointed as king doesn’t mean being installed as the king. So, there is a period of about ten or fifteen years between the anointing of David and the death of Saul, during which time Saul is constantly attacking David.
This is the end of that period. Saul has now been in profound carnality and rebellion against God for a long time. By this time, Samuel had died. Whenever things became bad and desperate and Saul was having these panic attacks, couldn’t rest at night, and was being oppressed by demons, Saul could always go to Samuel. Like a lot of people, when things get really bad, they will go to Bible class for a few weeks, and then, when things straighten out, they go back to living their life based on their sinful nature. They don’t stick with it. That is how Saul was.
1 Samuel 28:3
1 Samuel 28:3
1 Samuel 28:3 NASB “Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had removed from the land those who were mediums and spiritists.”
According to the Mosaic Law, being a medium, a witch, or a spiritist was a death penalty offence. But Saul was a bleeding-heart liberal who didn’t want to have the death penalty, so he just expelled them from the land. There were a few that were covert and stayed in the land, one of which was the witch of Endor. Saul had hit rock bottom as he was facing this battle with the Philistines.
Rudyard Kipling wrote
“Oh the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all!
Straight it runs to the Witch’s abode,
As it did in the days of Saul,
And nothing has changed of the sorrow in store
For such as go down on the road to En-dor!”
Now Kipling was not a practicing Christian – in fact he was a former Anglican, and more of an atheistic synchronist who interchanged references to God – Allah – and Fate. He rejected eternal punishment and emphasized personal responsibility and moral conduct as more important than doctrinal belief.
Kipling wrote “En-Dor” as a direct attack on the rise of spiritualism after World War I. The poem draws on the biblical story of Saul consulting the Witch of En-dor (1 Samuel 28) to warn against the emotional and spiritual dangers of trying to contact the dead.
You see,
Kipling lost his only son, John, in WWI—a devastating blow. Really a tragic blow, because his 17 yo son John was partially blind and unable to enlist. But Rudyard pulled some strings as an ardent supporter of the throne and military and got his son enlisted. He was lost in a battle in France against the Germans.
In the post ware era, many grieving families turned to mediums and séances to reach lost loved ones.
Kipling saw this as dangerous self-deception, emotionally exploitative, and spiritually corrosive.
In a 1919 letter to his publisher, he described the poem En-Dor as a “direct attack on the present mania of spiritualism”, especially among the bereaved.
Let me read the whole poem to you:
The road to En-dor is easy to tread
For Mother or yearning Wife.
There, it is sure, we shall meet our Dead
As they were even in life.
Earth has not dreamed of the blessing in store
For desolate hearts on the road to En-dor.
2 Whispers shall comfort us out of the dark—
Hands—ah God!—that we knew!
Visions and voices—look and hark!—
Shall prove that the tale is true,
An that those who have passed to the further shore
May be hailed—at a price—on the road to En-dor.
3But they are so deep in their new eclipse
Nothing they say can reach,
Unless it be uttered by alien lips
And framed in a stranger's speech.
The son must send word to the mother that bore,
Through an hireling's mouth.
'Tis the rule of En-dor.
4And not for nothing these gifts are shown
By such as delight our dead.
They must twitch and stiffen and slaver and groan
Ere the eyes are set in the head,
And the voice from the belly begins. Therefore,
We pay them a wage where they ply at En-dor.
5Even so, we have need of faith
And patience to follow the clue.
Often, at first, what the dear one saith
Is babble, or jest, or untrue.
(Lying spirits perplex us sore
Till our loves—and their lives—are well-known at
En-dor). . . . .
6Oh, the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all!
Straight it runs to the Witch's abode,
As it did in the days of Saul,
And nothing has changed of the sorrow in store
For such as go down on the road to En-dor!
Now, we need to pay attention to the vocabulary of demon possession and demon influence. This is very important. The word possesses, as we have noted, has the connotation of ownership, and that is not the meaning of the Greek term at all. The words that we have is the phrase en pneumati akatharto (akatharsis is the word for unclean, and pneuma is the word for spirit) ”with an unclean spirit.” A person who is said to be demon possessed (daimonizomai) is described as having or is with an unclean spirit.
The way to understand a vague word like daimonizomai is to look at the other words used in the context that are more precise. If a word is vague, then those other terms define it for the reader. Today, people come along and say this word daimonizomai, a present passive indicative, means, if you break it down etymologically, to be acted upon by a demon. Well, somebody could be acted upon by a demon in a very mild way. If you are living in the devil’s world, you are being acted upon by a demon. That affects everybody throughout the world system. Or sometimes being acted upon by a demon could be something extreme, as we have portrayed in Scripture. It is incredible how many people are buying into this very bad exegetical approach today. The reality is that the word daimonizomai is only used of these certain extreme kinds of activity of demons. It is never used of milder forms.
Some of the other words that are used to describe that. Somebody who is “with an unclean spirit”, Mark 5:8-13.
Mark 5:8-13
Mark 5:8-13
8 For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” 9 Then He asked him, “What is your name?” And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country. 11 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains. 12 So all the demons begged Him, saying, “Send us to the swine, that we may enter them.” 13 And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.
These are from the same passage describing the Gadarene demoniac. An “unclean spirit” – ἀκάθαρτος “το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον”, but in verse 15 and 18 is described as literally being acted upon by a demon.
The Greek verb δαιμονίζομαι (daimonizomai), meaning to be demonized or possessed by a demon, appears in Mark 5, specifically in the story of the Gerasene demoniac.
Mark 5:15 – The man is described as “the one who had been demonized” (τὸν δαιμονισθέντα).
Mark 5:18 – As Jesus is getting into the boat, “the one who had been demonized” (ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς) begs to go with Him.
Mark 5:15
Mark 5:15
15 Then they came to Jesus, and saw the one who had been demon-possessed and had the legion, sitting and clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid.
Mark 5:18
Mark 5:18
18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him.
But the same man is described in Luke 8:27, describing the same event, as “had an unclean spirit”—echon daimonia. That verb echon, meaning to have, is the same word used of the slave girl is Acts 16.
Whenever Jesus, the disciples, or Paul in Acts cast out a demon, the words in the context are these three:
a) exerchomai. The root word erchomai means to come or to go. The prefix ex means out of. So it means to go out of or to come out of;
b) eiserchomai. The preposition eis means to go somewhere, into something. So that means to enter into;
c) ekballo. ballo is the word to cast or throw. But when it is ekballo, ek means out of, and so it is pulling something out or casting it out. That is what is used of a demon.
These are the terms used as synonyms for daimonizomai, a general term that could mean being acted upon by a demon. But what the words around it describe someone who has a demon in them, who has entered into them, and in order to relieve them of their state of daimonizomai, the demon has to be cast out of them. Then we are told the demon goes out of this man and goes into the herd of pigs. So, demon possession doesn’t mean being owned by a demon; it means being controlled internally by a demon.
Wasn’t Saul demon possessed? Absolutely not.
1 Samuel 16:23
1 Samuel 16:23
23 And so it was, whenever the spirit from God was upon Saul, that David would take a harp and play it with his hand. Then Saul would become refreshed and well, and the distressing spirit would depart from him.
Satan and the demons can’t do anything unless God gives them permission. We learn that from Job chapters one and two. So, whatever happens in terms of satanic or demonic involvement in human history is under God’s permissive will. He allows that to happen for His purposes because God is omniscient and knows what will happen. God has allowed this divine discipline upon Saul for his sin of rebellion, and He has allowed this demon to oppress Saul. But the word used here is “upon” Saul; it is not in him. It is external, not internal.
1 Samuel 19:9
1 Samuel 19:9
9 Now the distressing spirit from the Lord came upon Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand. And David was playing music with his hand.
Whereas the language we see in the New Testament is language related to something internal, something going in somebody that has to be taken out of them.
1 Samuel 28:1
1 Samuel 28:1
1 Now it happened in those days that the Philistines gathered their armies together for war, to fight with Israel. And Achish said to David, “You assuredly know that you will go out with me to battle, you and your men.”
Philistia is located far to the southwest, in the area where the Gaza Strip is today. For Achish to have penetrated as far north as the northeast side of the Valley of Esdraelon, about seventy to eighty miles inside of Israel’s territory, indicates that the Philistines had control of a large amount of the territory, especially in the north in Galilee. They are going to go into battle against Saul and his army, and Saul has to figure out what he is going to do. Samuel is dead, and God is no longer speaking to Saul through Samuel. He decides he needs to gather information, and so the end justifies the means; he is going to find out whether any witches are hiding in the land that he can visit.
1 Samuel 28:5
1 Samuel 28:5
5 When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly.
What motivates us to sin is often emotional. We are scared, frightened, arrogant, or angry. This, then, is the mental attitude that motivates the overt sins.
1 Samuel 28:6
1 Samuel 28:6
6 And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets.
The Lord hadn’t been talking to him for a long time because he was out of fellowship. (Psalm 66:18 NASB “If I regard wickedness [lit. when we see sin in our heart] in my heart, The Lord will not hear.”) [
1 Samuel 28:7
1 Samuel 28:7
7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “In fact, there is a woman who is a medium at En Dor.”
They had to find one because Saul had already run them out years earlier.
1 Samuel 28:8
1 Samuel 28:8
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Please conduct a séance for me, and bring up for me the one I shall name to you.”
He doesn’t want to be known and identified.
1 Samuel 28:9-10
1 Samuel 28:9-10
9 Then the woman said to him, “Look, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the spiritists from the land. Why then do you lay a snare for my life, to cause me to die?” 10 And Saul swore to her by the Lord, saying, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.”
See how far down he has gone in his carnality. Now he is going to swear in the name of Yahweh that he is not going to entrap her. When we get into carnality, we start using religion for our own purposes.
1 Samuel 28:11
1 Samuel 28:11
11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.”
She goes through her usual ritual, and she probably had some affiliation with an engastrimuthos demon. All that has ever happened before is that a disembodied voice comes out of the ground. Either she is a fraud and is doing it like a ventriloquist, or there is a demon that is associated with her, probably a demon in this particular case. However, in this particular case, Samuel appears to her in his intermediate form. Samuel comes up from Sheol, the Paradise compartment, and as soon as she recognizes him, she is scared. She knows that this is the real thing. She has never seen the real thing before.
Samuel sounds a little irritated. Why in the world have you brought me out of Paradise to come back to this nasty earth [paraphrase]?
1 Samuel 28:15
1 Samuel 28:15
15 Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me and does not answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do.”
He tried to approach God, but not on His terms. That is why God is not talking to him. This is like a lot of Christians. They want divine guidance, but they don’t want to go to the Bible, they don’t want to attend Bible class, and they don’t want to participate in fellowship; instead, they want to send an email to the pastor to get a quick idea of what they ought to do. They have refused for weeks, months, and years to build doctrine into their soul to give them the framework for decision-making.
1 Samuel 28:16
1 Samuel 28:16
16 Then Samuel said: “So why do you ask me, seeing the Lord has departed from you and has become your enemy?
Saul is a believer. He is in rebellion, but in the early years God gave him a new heart, performed several miracles to validate his appointment and the fact that Saul was anointed to be king. This is all over with. Samuel said,
1 Samuel 28:19
1 Samuel 28:19
19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.”
They are going to be together. They will not be separated. Saul is not going to go to the torments while Samuel is in Paradise; they are going to be in the same place. That is why we know that Saul was a believer. But he was a disobedient believer, and he became an enemy of God. This is what happens when believers go into carnality.
1 Samuel 28:17-18
1 Samuel 28:17-18
17 And the Lord has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day.
How many years before did that happen? Twenty-five. Now Saul is going to receive the divine discipline for disobedience of 25 years earlier.
1 Samuel 28:19-2-
1 Samuel 28:19-2-
19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.” 20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, and was dreadfully afraid because of the words of Samuel. And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten no food all day or all night.
What we learn from this is something about the operation of this kind of fortune-telling spirit. In this case, it was a legitimate thing, and the witch at Endor is not unlike this servant girl in Acts 16 who has the python spirit.
Mark 5:2
Mark 5:2
2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
The first description of this man is that he has an unclean spirit.
Mark 5:3
Mark 5:3
3 who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains,
In this particular case the demon gave him a supernatural strength and ability to break the chains.…
Mark 5:6
Mark 5:6
6 When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped Him.
Who is in control of this man? It is the demon. The word “worship [in some versions] means to bow down. So, he is not worshipping in a positive sense, because the demon knows who Jesus is, the second person of the Trinity, and the sovereign of the universe. The demon had to show his obeisance to the sovereign God. So, the demon who is in control is bringing this man to Jesus. It is not a sign that the man is exercising positive volition because the man is not in control. The demon is in control.
The man cries out with a loud voice. The reason for making this point is that he ran, he worshipped, and he cried out with a loud voice. However, when you examine what is said, it is the demon speaking. So, the ‘he’ here is describing the man, but the actions of the man—his speaking, his running, his bowing down—are really the actions of the demon controlling him.
Mark 5:7
Mark 5:7
7 And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.”
What is he saying? Don’t send me into torments. Don’t send me into the abyss with all those other demons. Remember the “sons of God” that were sent into the chains of deep darkness until they are judged at the end of the Tribulation period? These demons don’t want to go through that.
Mark 5:8
Mark 5:8
8 For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!”
That is the word exerchomai—come out.
Mark 5:9
Mark 5:9
9 Then He asked him, “What is your name?” And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.”
What we see today in ‘pop demonology’ is that if you are going to cast out a demon, you have to know its name because that gives you power over it. That is the pagan way of doing an exorcism. That is not what Jesus is doing here. What Jesus does by asking his name is expose the fact that there is not one demon; there are several thousand, showing that many demons can control one person.
A legion in the Roman army involved two or three thousand. So, there are two or three thousand demons here. They start begging Jesus not to send them out of the country.
Mark 5:11
Mark 5:11
11 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains.
This is a gentile area. They wouldn’t have the pigs in Israel because pigs are an unclean animal. So they are going to send the unclean spirit into an unclean animal.
Mark 5:12
Mark 5:12
12 So all the demons begged Him, saying, “Send us to the swine, that we may enter them.”
The word “enter” is the Greek word eiserchomai, they want to go into them.
Mark 5:13
Mark 5:13
13 And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.
The unclean spirits went out and entered. So, the first word is exerchomai (they came out). And then they entered into the swine.
Mark 5:15
Mark 5:15
15 Then they came to Jesus, and saw the one who had been demon-possessed and had the legion, sitting and clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid.
The man is described as the one who had been demon possessed [daimonizomai]. So daimonizomai is defined as somebody who has a demon inside them. All of this tells us that these words exerchomai and eiserchomai are so important. Because if they are not the interpretive crux of this passage, then we get real problems later on when we talk about Judas Iscariot, because it says, “Satan entered in to him.” Some people have made the terrible error of saying that means demon influence or Satan influence. No. If we say that word means influence over in John 13 then we are going to destroy our whole demonology and the whole argument for why Christians can’t be demon possessed, because we can’t define demon possession. This is critical. These are technical words, and they have to mean the same thing in the same context every time, or language doesn’t really mean anything, and we are just perverting the use of language, which is something that most liberals do. Every word of God is authoritative, and we need to pay attention to it.
So what we have seen here is this important concept that when one has a demon then that demon is inside controlling the person. So what delivers this woman in Acts 16 is the fact that the demon is cast out by the apostle Paul.
End of 6/29/2025 2nd Service
End of 6/29/2025 2nd Service
Sunday, July 6, 2025
Sunday, July 6, 2025
Can Christians Be Demon-Possessed? The Simple Gospel. Acts 16:21-40
Can Christians Be Demon-Possessed? The Simple Gospel. Acts 16:21-40
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 16
Let’s catch back up, returning to our context.
We have been addressing some doctrine that is raised from our text, in our study of Acts 16.
Let’s read the text, to establish our context and the basis for our discussion:
Now Paul and Silas are in Philippi which is the foremost city in the Roman colony of Macedonia. As they went to prayer, which would be on a Sabbath they were met by a slave girl with a spirit, who followed them for days
We will wrap up this topical study related to demon possession. This is a significant issue because there is considerable confusion surrounding it. The way that this has developed is that the apostle Paul has been confronted by this fortune-teller, who is demon possessed. And the possessing spirit follows them around for not a day, not a couple of days, which would be annoying, but for many days ...the term used is πολλὰς [POLLAS] which means a great many, an exceeding number.
Let’s read:
Acts 16:16-19
Acts 16:16-19
16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” 18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour. 19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.
Now, every unbeliever is born in the domain/ under the authority of Satan in the world system.
As creatures who are spiritually dead, they are already in carnality. There are examples in the gospels of children who are demon-possessed. That is not the result of a volitional decision; it is not because they were going out and getting involved in the dark arts, the occult, at the age of two or three. It is because they are in the devil’s world, and as such, that can happen.
All the things that demons do are under God’s authority. We must also examine Scripture and recognize that there are specific periods in Scriptural history when demon activity was overt. One of those was during the time of Christ's incarnation, during His ministry on earth, and in the establishment of the church.
If demon possession is the major problem a lot of so-called deliverance ministries emphasize, then the Scriptures from the Gospels and the book of Acts are incredibly silent. There is just no mention of this. The epistles were written to teach us everything we need to know about living the Christian life. If demon possession—not demon influence—is the problem that people think it is, then why is the Bible so incredibly silent?
We have to understand what the Bible teaches. We often encounter difficulties when we attempt to interpret Scripture based on our personal experiences.
We must remember the key principle: that you are to interpret experiences based on the Bible, and not the other way around.
People have all kinds of experiences. People claim to speak in tongues. While we can’t challenge experience, we can challenge the interpretation of a person’s experience.
When they claim to have had an experience, such as God talking to them, then something happened; they did have an experience. However, what they think that experience was probably isn’t what they think it was; it is likely something different. The Bible teaches something different. We must learn to interpret our experience in light of the Bible, rather than interpreting the Bible through our own experiences.
There really is such a thing as demon possession. There was at the time of Christ and in the first century. Paul came face-to-face with that in Philippi.
Acts 16 tells us that a certain slave girl had a spirit of divination. Literally, she had a puthonos. This was related to the spirit that inhabited the Oracle at Delphi, the priestess who was alleged to have the ability to foretell the future.
The question that has been raised over the years is: Can a Christian be demon possessed? This is one of those areas where experience has played a more significant role than anything else. How do you even know if a person is demon possessed? What are the tell-tale signs? The Scriptures give a variety of different “symptoms,” we might say, or different characteristics of those who are demon possessed; they are not all the same.
Many people say, “I can tell.”
How can you tell?
What gives you the insight, the information?
In the third century AD, a Jewish rabbi identified four characteristics of someone who was demon possessed:
a) they would walk about at night. Anyone over the age of fifty is going to identify with this problem of “middle age insomnia”;
b) spending the night on a grave;
c) tearing one’s clothes. In the Old Testament, in Jewish culture, that was a sign of grief. So, when is the tearing of one’s clothes indicative of demon possession? When is it not?;
d) destroying what one is given.
Other evidence that people are demon possessed is given in a list by 17th-century Puritans. Notice these lists are built off experiences. The Bible says nothing about these things.
a) If you think you are possessed, maybe you are;
b) if you lead a wicked life, if you are a sinner;
c) to be persistently ill;
d) if you fall into heavy sleep;
e) from vomiting up unusual objects—toads, serpents, worms, or artificial objects;
f) to blaspheme;
g) to make a pact with the devil;
h) to be troubled with spirits;
i) to show a frightening or horrible countenance;
j) to be tired of living. That is one of the big tests in the spiritual life. We do get tired; we are ready to go to be with the Lord and we are tired of the battle. But we need to continue to persevere and learn to love the battle;
k) to be uncontrolled and violent;
l) to make sounds and movements like an animal.
See the difference between a third-century Jew and a 17th-century Puritan? They are pretty different. Where did they get this? Neither of those lists reflect any of the characteristics revealed in the demon possession narratives in the Scriptures.
Now, we get some purported insight from a Dr. Kurt Koch, who is considered to be an expert on the demonic, as a German theologian, pastor, and evangelist who is widely recognized for his work on the occult and demonic phenomena from a biblical perspective. He earned his Doctor of Theology from the University of Tübingen and spent over five decades counseling individuals affected by occult practices across more than 65 countries.
According to Dr. Koch, you can tell if a person is demon possessed if they are cursing, if they are grinding their teeth, if they are suicidal, or if they are falling into a trance. If demons possess you, they emit a scornful laugh if they hear someone talk about the cross of Christ or the blood of Jesus.
That flies in the face of scriptural evidence. The scriptural evidence is that when confronted with the gospel or Jesus, they are forced to recognize the authority of God. They may not like it, but they are forced to, and they are not disrespectful or blasphemous to Jesus when Jesus shows up.
Koch goes on to say that the person possessed will display evil and hateful expressions, especially when spiritual things are talked about.
The problem today is that we form our theology too often on some experience that somebody has had. And so the question is raised: Can a Christian be demon possessed?
Chuck Swindoll, in his book Demonism said: “Can a Christian be demonized? For a couple of years, I questioned this, but now I am convinced it can occur.”
Listen to his basis for concluding this:
“If a ground of entrance has been granted the power of darkness …”
What is a ground of entrance? If you’re playing with your Ouija board or tarot cards, or getting involved in séances, that opens you to the demonic. I would say that biblically, if you are in carnality and you are a spiritually dead unbeliever, you have opened yourself to the demonic, because of your circumstances.
But he is saying that “if you have a ground of entrance such as trafficking in the occult, or have a continual unforgiving spirit, are in a habitual state of carnality, the demon sees this as a green light, an okay to proceed.” That was in Chuck Swindoll’s little book on demonism.
But all such arguments ultimately come down to the question of experience. One of the most profound instances of this that we need to remember, cite, and counter is that one of the most educated, erudite scholars and Old Testament professors at Dallas Seminary and author of numerous books, Merrill Unger, had one major flaw. When he wrote his doctoral dissertation, it was on demonology. It was published later as a book, Biblical Demonology. He argued very clearly in that book that Christians could not be demon-possessed. For that, he received a load of critical mail from Christian missionaries, some of whom he respected, who said they had been on the mission field and had had experiences where people they knew were Christians who had manifested the characteristics of demon possession, and they were demon possessed. Dr Unger later changed his original position.
How do you tell if a person is demon-possessed? How do you know they are not just in need of medication? How do you know that it is just the fact that they have got some demon acting upon them from outside? How do you know any of this without revelation from the area of the unseen? The only certainty we have is the Scripture. Therefore, we can’t make these kinds of decisions and diagnoses about people based solely on empirical evidence. As a Bible student, I don’t have to know what is really causing the problems that a person is experiencing; I need to know what the answer is. The answer is the cross, if they are not a believer; it is getting in fellowship and learning to walk by the Holy Spirit, if they are a believer. That is the solution. The Word of God and the power of God are sufficient, and I don’t need to understand all the dynamics that cause them to act in the way they do. People who are living in extended carnality, divorced from the reality of God’s Word, are going to manifest all kinds of symptoms related to neurosis and psychosis. I can’t identify the issues if I don’t have access to all that data. Therefore, we must understand what Scripture teaches, and then we can address these issues.
The strongest argument against a Christian being demon possessed is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The popular version of expressing this argument is actually logically fallacious. It goes something like this. A Christian can’t be demon possessed because a demon can’t be present in the same environment as God the Holy Spirit. Every believer is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit; therefore, Satan or demons cannot be in the same place or location as the Holy Spirit, so Christians can’t be demon possessed.
The problem is we have passages like Job 1 & 2 and other passages where Satan goes before God.
Job 1:6-12
Job 1:6-12
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” 8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?” 9 So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” 12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
Then again we see in Job:
Job 2:1-10
Job 2:1-10
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” 3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” 4 So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5 But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” 6 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.” 7 So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Zechariah chapter three gives us another example. Here Satan and the demons are in the very presence of God
Zechariah 3:1-5
Zechariah 3:1-5
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel. 4 Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, “Take away the filthy garments from him.” And to him He said, “See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.” 5 And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head, and they put the clothes on him. And the Angel of the Lord stood by.
1 Kings 22 gives us another view of the Throne Room of heaven, with insight into the throne room of rulers, and the activities of prophesying demons:
1 Kings 22:1-28
1 Kings 22:1-28
1 Now three years passed without war between Syria and Israel. 2 Then it came to pass, in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went down to visit the king of Israel. 3 And the king of Israel said to his servants, “Do you know that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, but we hesitate to take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?” 4 So he said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to fight at Ramoth Gilead?” Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.” 5 Also Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Please inquire for the word of the Lord today.” 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth Gilead to fight, or shall I refrain?” So they said, “Go up, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king.” 7 And Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not still a prophet of the Lord here, that we may inquire of Him?” 8 So the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is still one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the Lord; but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say such things!” 9 Then the king of Israel called an officer and said, “Bring Micaiah the son of Imlah quickly!” 10 The king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, having put on their robes, sat each on his throne, at a threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. 11 Now Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made horns of iron for himself; and he said, “Thus says the Lord: ‘With these you shall gore the Syrians until they are destroyed.’ ” 12 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, “Go up to Ramoth Gilead and prosper, for the Lord will deliver it into the king’s hand.” 13 Then the messenger who had gone to call Micaiah spoke to him, saying, “Now listen, the words of the prophets with one accord encourage the king. Please, let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak encouragement.” 14 And Micaiah said, “As the Lord lives, whatever the Lord says to me, that I will speak.” 15 Then he came to the king; and the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall we refrain?” And he answered him, “Go and prosper, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king!” 16 So the king said to him, “How many times shall I make you swear that you tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?” 17 Then he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master. Let each return to his house in peace.’ ” 18 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” 19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.” 24 Now Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord go from me to speak to you?” 25 And Micaiah said, “Indeed, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide!” 26 So the king of Israel said, “Take Micaiah, and return him to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son; 27 and say, ‘Thus says the king: “Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and water of affliction, until I come in peace.” ’ ” 28 But Micaiah said, “If you ever return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Take heed, all you people!”
We have many people who emphasize doctrine. What doctrine is, is often a principled summary of what the Bible teaches. But often when we principlize and summarize, we get away from the literal text of the Word of God. We create an abstract point that has slipped its anchor from the text. And that pithy little syllogism has slipped from the text. This is a real problem. We must always have a biblically grounded view of everything. Don’t get too far away from what the text actually says.
What the Scripture says is not simply that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. That is not the strength of the whole argument.
1 Corinthians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:19, before they state the fact of indwelling, say, “Don’t you know that your body is the temple of God?”
1 Corinthians 3:16 & 6:19
1 Corinthians 3:16 & 6:19
16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
The point that we made in defining demon possession as a demon who is able to take residence inside the body and to control the body—that is internal, we’re talking about the body, and what 1 Corinthians is saying is that the believer’s body is a temple, a temple to the Holy Spirit.
There are two different words in Greek for a temple. One is naos and the other is heiron. Naos refers to the Holy of Holies, whereas heiron refers to the entire temple precinct. The Bible doesn’t say our body is a heiron, it says it is a naos. It is like the Holy of Holies.
If anyone entered the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament without undergoing proper cleansing, as prescribed in the Old Testament, they died. God didn’t give them access. Anyone could enter the outer courtyard—the courtyard of the Gentiles, the court of the women, or the court of the Jews—but there were strict procedures to gain access to the naos. Your body is a naos. It is not just that the Holy Spirit dwells in you; it is that He has converted your body from the instant of salvation into a Holy of Holies for the indwelling of God the Father and God the Son. This makes it very distinct.
Consider some examples from the Old Testament where the regulations of God regarding the naos were violated.
Leviticus 10:1-2
Leviticus 10:1-2
1 Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. 2 So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.
2 Samuel 6:6-7
2 Samuel 6:6-7
6 And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God.
The picture we have indicates that in the very presence of God and that which He has sanctified and set apart as His dwelling place, as a temple, nothing unclean, wicked, or evil enters into that sanctuary.
Another illustration of this can be seen in the layout of the Jews as they traveled through the wilderness. All of the tribes were given their specific positions around the tabernacle. If sin existed in the camp, and it did in Joshua chapter four after the battle of Jericho, Achan, in violation of God’s command, kept some of the booty for himself. As a result, when they went into battle against Ai, the Israelites were defeated. Because Achan has brought sin into the camp, it has polluted the camp, and there is the death penalty upon Achan and his family.
The concept of being undefiled in the inner sanctuary is a critical issue in Scripture. That is the imagery of these two verses. This is the strongest argument, I think, for why Christians cannot be demon possessed. God has sanctified the believer as a naos-type temple, and Satan or the demons cannot violate that. A passage that summarizes this is 1 John 4:4
1 John 4:4
1 John 4:4
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
It is very popular today to reduce these arguments to a false or weak premise and then defeat them, the straw man argument, but that doesn’t really work.
The second argument is from Matthew in the Gospels, the empty house illustration. This is an analogy that Jesus used to teach about what was happening in Israel, but it also has application to the life of an individual believer.
Matthew 12:28-29
Matthew 12:28-29
28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
The context is that the Pharisees have now reached this crisis point in this confrontation with Jesus, where they, in representing the nation, have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and instead of accepting Him as the Son of God, they are claiming His real power comes from the devil.
29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.
To infiltrate the house, you must penetrate it and bind the strong man.
The house here represents the body. So, something that controls the body has to be bound before it can be plundered. Then He applies this illustration of the body to demon possession.
Matthew 12:43-45
Matthew 12:43-45
43 “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. 44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order.
This represents someone who has gone through moral but not spiritual reformation. They have cleaned up their life and gotten off the booze and pills, loose women and wild parties and everything else that people get involved in. They have gone through a moral reformation but no spiritual regeneration. The demon comes back and thinks: oh, this is such a wonderful place to live now.
45 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”
The illustration that Jesus uses of the way in which God is going to judge that generation of Jews is an illustration relating to someone who has been demon possessed. The demon leaves and comes back and inhabits the place, but there is no spiritual regeneration. This indicates that the unbeliever, the wicked, is the one who is open to demon possession.
We also have the High Priestly prayer of Jesus. This is a prayer that is a part of His intercessory ministry for everyone who is a Christian, for the entire Christian church.
John 17:15
John 17:15
15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
This is an excellent passage for saying that you don’t go off into monastic asceticism and isolate yourself from the world. There are churches and Christians who engage in this practice. They want to insulate and isolate themselves from the world, so they have no contact with it. This isn’t any different from third- or fourth-century monastic asceticism. The word ”keep” in this verse is a word meaning to protect or to guard, “from the evil one.” Here, the preposition ek is used, meaning separation. It indicates severance, being separated from something. This would exclude the invasion of a child of God’s body by unholy demons. We know the Father has heard and has fulfilled, and is fulfilling Christ’s request, and this must at least include the protection of all believers. Christ is praying that believers be separated from the evil one. The preposition indicates a severance and a separation from the evil one, and that would at the very least imply that the believer cannot be demon possessed.
1 John 5:18-19
1 John 5:18-19
18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. 19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Christians sin, and when John says this he has to mean something other than simple regeneration. In 1 John he uses that phrase to talk about those who are living like family members, not like the prodigal son; whoever is living like a regenerate person should live. People who are members of God’s family don’t act like they are not.
“… but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in {the power of} the evil one.”
The idea of touching here is the idea of holding or grasping onto something and not letting go, grabbing hold and seizing control of.
We are protected from the evil one.
2 Thessalonians 3:3
2 Thessalonians 3:3
3 But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you and guard you from the evil one.
This is the use of the preposition apo, which means from the source of something, but when it is combined with a word meaning to protect or to keep from something it has the idea of so that it is not lost or damaged. It is kept from harm so that it is not lost or damaged. So being protected from the evil one means that we can’t be harmed by Satan. Demon possession would mean being harmed by Satan.
An argument from sufficiency and silence.
2 Peter 1:3-4
2 Peter 1:3-4
3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
The word of God claims to be a sufficient source of information for us on how to live the spiritual life. And the epistles were specifically written to explain the mystery doctrine of the church age to believers of the same era. You can’t find any reference to demons in the sense of demon possession in the epistles.
There is a recognition that we are involved in spiritual warfare which we see in Ephesians. 6:10ff).
Ephesians 6:10-20
Ephesians 6:10-20
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
Paul talks about the fact that we are to take down strongholds, the satanic ideas in the soul;
2 Corinthians 10:3-5
2 Corinthians 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
we are not to be conformed to the world, all of those things.
Romans 12:1-2
Romans 12:1-2
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
But notice that in all of this Paul doesn’t ever mention demon possession. Neither do Peter, James or John.
We believe the Scriptures are sufficient, and if this is a significant problem, as some think it is, then the Scriptures can’t be sufficient. Or, if they are sufficient, then demon possession isn’t a problem at all.
Acts 16:19-20
Acts 16:19-20
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities. 20 And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city;
There are a couple of different words to describe these leaders, and they fit the context of this time. These are the civil authorities in Philippi. Nobody knows how they are troubling the cities. There is considerable debate in the commentaries over this. This bottom line over this is probably because, as Jews, even though there was a certain level of acceptance and freedom of Jews to worship according to the Law, they were considered strange.
After all, they were monotheists in the Roman empire. They kept to themselves and did some proselytizing at that time. Today, Jews are no longer proselytizing, but they were in the first century and second temple Judaism. They are being accused of being Jews, not Christians. They are seen as troublemakers and are doing something that has caused harm to the livelihood of these Romans. That is basically what is going on here in the second verse—“teaching customs”.
Acts 16:21
Acts 16:21
21 and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe.”
There was no law against this in Rome; it is simply that this was upsetting the usual way in which business was conducted, and Paul and Silas and Luke and Timothy were bringing a measure of absolutes to the situation, saying there was something wrong with these people who were involved with demonism.
But they are also involved in irritating the crowd. This is similar to what will happen in Ephesus in a few chapters, where we will see a massive riot that takes place because of Paul’s preaching of the gospel. This is a good way to try to influence government; we still see it today. Get the populace all riled up. Don’t deal with logic, don’t deal with objectivity; get people emotionally invested in the argument.
End of July 6, 2025
End of July 6, 2025
Sunday, July 13, 2025
Sunday, July 13, 2025
Summary on Demonism; Paul & Silas Imprisoned. Acts 16:21-40
Summary on Demonism; Paul & Silas Imprisoned. Acts 16:21-40
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 16
Let’s reread our text
Acts 16:16-18
Acts 16:16-18
16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” 18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.
We have now covered the category of doctrine that is called angelology which includes demonology and addressed the biblical text explanation of the ideas of being demon possessed, the biblical terms we should understand.
In review, The New Testament gives us terminology for the demons or entitities that are doing the possessing in the textual accounts:
We have it described as an “unclean spirit” in Mark 5:8-13.
The words that we have is the phrase en pneumati akatharto (akatharsis is the word for unclean, and pneuma is the word for spirit) ”with an unclean spirit.” A person who is said to be demon possessed (daimonizomai) is described as having or is with an unclean spirit.
We see this in our Mark passage about the Gadarene demoniac.
Mark 5:8-13
Mark 5:8-13
8 For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” 9 Then He asked him, “What is your name?” And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country. 11 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains. 12 So all the demons begged Him, saying, “Send us to the swine, that we may enter them.” 13 And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.
The “unclean spirit” – is from the term ἀκάθαρτος plus PNEUMA spirit so that in the singular it says “το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον”, whereas in the the plural it is “τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα” … and notice that the Greek retains the article TO or TA in plural which simply means that the verb is talking about a specific person or thing instead of talking about the essence or nature of the thing.
The word AKATHANTOS is not so much about a dirty demon in the sense we might use it, but is about something that is ceremonially unclean — something that might defile anyone who comes into contact with it. And these people were separated from society, like lepers, and those who came into contact would be ceremonially unclean too.
So Jesus speaks to the thing - addressing it as an unclean spirit. It responds and says it is a they. Then we are told these unclean spirits - plural go into a herd of swine and drown them.
But we have a synonym used in the passage that we need to learn as well, which we see in verse 15 and 18 where the term is described as literally being acted upon by a demon.
The Greek verb δαιμονίζομαι (daimonizomai), meaning to be demonized or possessed by a demon, appears a few verse later in our Mark 5 story of the Gerasene demoniac.
Mark 5:15 – The man is described as “the one who had been demonized” (τὸν δαιμονισθέντα).
Mark 5:18 – As Jesus is getting into the boat, “the one who had been demonized” (ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς) begs to go with Him.
Mark 5:15
Mark 5:15
15 Then they came to Jesus, and saw the one who had been demon-possessed and had the legion, sitting and clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid.
Mark 5:18
Mark 5:18
18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him.
But the same man is described by Doctor Luke in Luke 8:27, describing the same event, as “had a demon”— ειχεν δαιμονια EICHEN DAIMONIA.
Luke 8:27
Luke 8:27
27 And when He stepped out on the land, there met Him a certain man from the city who had demons for a long time. And he wore no clothes, nor did he live in a house but in the tombs.
That verb echon, meaning “to have”, is the same word used of the slave girl is Acts 16.
Acts 16:16
Acts 16:16
16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling.
Whenever Jesus, the disciples, or Paul in Acts cast out a demon, the words in the context are these three:
a) exerchomai. The root word erchomai means to come or to go. The prefix ex means out of. So it means to go out of or to come out of;
b) eiserchomai. The preposition eis means to go somewhere, into something. So that means to enter into;
c) ekballo. ballo is the word to cast or throw. But when it is ekballo, ek means out of, and so it is pulling something out or casting it out. That is what is used of a demon.
These are the terms used as synonyms for daimonizomai, a general term that could mean being acted upon by a demon. But the words around it describe someone who has a demon in them, who has entered into them, and in order to relieve them of their state of daimonizomai, the demon has to be cast out of them. Then we are told the demon goes out of this man and goes into the herd of pigs. So, demon possession doesn’t mean being owned by a demon; it means being controlled internally by a demon.
Christians cannot have demons.
The point that we made in defining demon possession is that it is the instance of a demon who is able to take residence inside the body and to control the body— so that is internal — talking about the body, and what 1 Corinthians is saying is that the believer’s body is a temple, a temple to the Holy Spirit. So the demon cannot reside in the temple of the Holy Spirit.
There are two specifically different words in Greek for a temple. One is naos and the other is heiron. Naos refers to the Holy of Holies, whereas heiron refers to the entire temple precinct. The Bible doesn’t say our body is a heiron, it says it is a naos. It is like the Holy of Holies.
This is as opposed to the HEIRON mentioned in Matthew 21:12
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 21:12
12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
Here we see that Jesus is cleansing the Temple Complex, including the outer Gentile court which was turned into a place of buying and selling and money changing.
The NAOS Temple corresponds to the Old Testament, what was called in Hebrew [מִשְׁכָּן—MISHKAN=dwelling (of YHWH)]
We see this called out in that famous passage of Numbers 16:9, as Moses and YHWH are dealing with the Korah rebellion. Where the Levites decide that it isn’t fair that only Aaron’s family get to be the priests of sacrifice. In their arrogance and human viewpoint they accuse Moses and Aaron of Nepotism.
Numbers 16:8-11
Numbers 16:8-11
8 Then Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi: 9 Is it a small thing to you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the work of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to serve them; 10 and that He has brought you near to Himself, you and all your brethren, the sons of Levi, with you? And are you seeking the priesthood also? 11 Therefore you and all your company are gathered together against the Lord. And what is Aaron that you complain against him?”
250 Levites threw their hats in the ring to challenge Aaron. God consumed them all with fire. And the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were consumed as the gournd opened taking them down to the smallest child.
Then the people of Israel turned against Moses and Aaron, and YHWH sent a plage that killed 14,700 and was only stopped by the intercession of Aaron at the behest of Moses.
Finally God created the blooming rod test for all of the 12 Tribes to show that it was indeed God/YHWH that chose Aaron alone to serve Him in the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies.
Only YHWH dwells in, and has access to, the Holy of Holies. False attempts are cast down and destroyed.
This corresponds with our bodies being the Holy Temples of YHWH, and shows that God’s omnipotence is at work to protect from the presence of any but Himself.
We pick up where we left off:
Now first, remember where we are.
They sailed from Troas, in verse 11, ran straight to Samothrace, next to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi - head of the Macedonian colony.
Acts 16:19-20
Acts 16:19-20
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities. 20 And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city;
There are a couple of different words to describe these leaders, and they fit the context of this time. These are the civil authorities in Philippi. Nobody knows how they are troubling the cities. There is considerable debate in the commentaries over this. This bottom line over this is probably because, as Jews, even though there was a certain level of acceptance and freedom of Jews to worship according to the Law, they were considered strange. In fact shortly before this incident, the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome, as Acts 18:2 informs us.
Acts 18:2
Acts 18:2
2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
The Jews were considered monotheists they were monotheists in the Roman empire. They kept to themselves and did some proselytizing at that time. Today, Jews are no longer proselytizing, but they were in the first century and second temple Judaism. They are being accused of being Jews, not Christians. They are seen as troublemakers and are doing something that has caused harm to the livelihood of these Romans. That is basically what is going on here in the second verse—“teaching customs”.
Rome permitted the peoples of its colonies to have their own religions but not to proselytize Roman citizens. The civil leaders could not distinguish between Judaism and Christianity like in Acts 18:14-15, so they would see the preaching of Paul and Silas as a flagrant infraction of imperial law.
Acts 18:14-15
Acts 18:14-15
14 And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you. 15 But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.”
Acts 16:21
Acts 16:21
21 and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe.”
There was no law against this in Rome; it is simply that this was upsetting the usual way in which business was conducted, and Paul and Silas and Luke and Timothy were bringing a measure of absolutes to the situation, saying there was something wrong with these people who were involved with demonism.
But they are also involved in irritating the crowd. This is similar to what will happen in Ephesus in a few chapters, where we will see a massive riot that takes place because of Paul’s preaching of the gospel. This is a good way to try to influence government; we still see it today. Get the populace all riled up. Don’t deal with logic, don’t deal with objectivity; get people emotionally invested in the argument.
Acts 16:22-23
Acts 16:22-23
22 Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. 23 And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely.
Under Roman law, if the jailer let them escape, he would be executed.
Acts 16:24
Acts 16:24
24 Having received such a charge, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.
The Romans would put their feet and hands on the stock, creating a painful and uncomfortable position where they could not relax.
Acts 16:25
Acts 16:25
25 But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.
When your focus is on doctrine, even in the most horrible circumstances, somehow the circumstances just fade into insignificance as you focus on the Lord. How many hymns could you sing if you were put in jail when you were going to be imprisoned for your faith? How many Bible verses could you say from memory? Here, others are listening to them. They are not entertaining them; they are giving them the gospel and witnessing to them. And the jailer can hear all of this, and so he is getting the gospel as well.
Acts 16:26
Acts 16:26
26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed.
But nobody leaves because Paul and Silas understand that if they leave it would put the jailer’s life in jeopardy. So they exercise grace orientation and stay right their in their jail.
Acts 16:27-28
Acts 16:27-28
27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.”
That shows the respect the others had for Paul in watching how he handled his adversity.
Acts 16:29-31
Acts 16:29-31
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Some say he is talking about being saved from being executed. Why would he be executed? Nobody left, so he hasn’t been put in jeopardy. He is asking how he can be saved, how he can get to heaven, and we get the most concise statement of the gospel here.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
But this statement isn’t in a vacuum. We are already told that Paul and Silas are praying and are singing hymns, and they have been talking about the gospel. The jailer has heard all of this. They’ve already listened to the sermon; now he is getting the invitation. He already knows who the Lord Jesus Christ is; he knows what belief is. They added, “and your household.” The reason is that people still lived with their families, and there are several examples of households getting saved in the book of Acts.
Acts 16:32
Acts 16:32
32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
They gave further explanation of the gospel. They visit his home and explain the gospel to his family.
Acts 16:33-36
Acts 16:33-36
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
35 And when it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, “Let those men go.”
They want to cover this up.
36 So the keeper of the prison reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Now therefore depart, and go in peace.”
But Paul isn’t going to let them get away with this. Some people would say this is Christian activism. “You are being arrogant; you are rubbing the authorities nose in their false law.” No, they are not. This is a legal right.
I get irritated and impatient sometimes with Christians who think all they have to do as a citizen is to pray, pray, and grow spiritually. That is the silliest nonsense I’ve ever heard of. You are a citizen of the United States, whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, etc. Your responsibility is to be an informed voter and to exercise your right to vote. And to be involved in local politics and all the way up. As a citizen of this country, you are invested with these responsibilities. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you are a Christian. As a Christian, you have to do everything according to the glory of God, and that includes being a citizen, the most informed citizen, the most involved citizen. That is not activism; that is responsibility. That is how you become salt and light in the midst of a perverse generation. But if all you do is sit and read your Bible and pray, you are a fool.
Paul challenges them: They have violated Roman law and I am a Roman citizen, and they can’t do this to us.
Acts 16:37
Acts 16:37
37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out.”
He is asserting his legal rights. They have to do this publicly; they can’t just do it privately. Paul stands his ground, the magistrates are going to have to come and make it as public a release as it was an indictment and an arrest.
Acts 16:38
Acts 16:38
38 And the officers told these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans.
You could not beat or whip a Roman citizen, and they had done that. They hadn’t even asked Paul. But even if they had he wouldn’t have claimed it then because he was with his companions, and he is a firm believer in the unity of the church, and he wasn’t going to assert personal privilege and let his fellow believers go to jail and he not go.
Acts 16:39-40
Acts 16:39-40
39 Then they came and pleaded with them and brought them out, and asked them to depart from the city. 40 So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.
Opposition and Acceptance. Acts 17:1-15
Opposition and Acceptance. Acts 17:1-15
As we move into this section in Acts, chapter 17:1-15, most of it is descriptive narrative, with very little focus on Paul’s teaching, and there is not a lot of content there. What we see is a contrast between the reception Paul receives in Thessalonica, which remains hostile. When he was in Philippi, there was a tremendous amount of hostility, and he left. These Jews eventually followed him to Thessalonica, and their self-righteous arrogance always breeds an arrogant type of reaction. In their self-righteous arrogance, they continue to stir up trouble.
What makes an interesting study is the different words the apostle Paul uses to describe the various ways in which hostility develops in his audience. However, we see that there is an opposition present, and this contrast is evident when we come to vv. 10-15, which talks about the response to Paul’s ministry in Berea. When Paul came into Berea, there was a very positive response. He goes through the same methodology as in Thessalonica and Philippi. Philippi didn’t have a synagogue, but he went to some God-fearers. In Thessalonica, he goes to the synagogue, and there is a tremendous adverse reaction from among the Jews.
There is a significant application here for us, as we observe the developments in our culture, particularly in American and Western civilization. Since the mid-nineteenth century, we have been on a negative trajectory regarding the Gospel and the Scriptures. That is when a significant shift occurred within many academic institutions in the US, and it takes a while for ideas to filter down to become the normative thinking of the everyday person. They have been influenced by Marxist-Leninist thinking, which is grounded in a naturalistic worldview that doesn’t see God as overseeing the history of mankind. They don’t see man as being created in the image and likeness of God. They have views that are generally acceptive of human psychological theories that have been developed from Freud in the mid to late 19th century, and they operate on a lot of assumptions and views in terms of a sort of pop culture that have come out of the developments of 19th century sociological thinking from people like Hebert Spencer and others. Yet today, even though people may never have heard of these names, they are still thinking of those individuals.
This is especially true of the generation that has now come of age, often referred to as “millennials,” the ones who came of age in the last fifteen years or so. Studies show that among this generation, specifically regarding the Supreme Court decision that overturned key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act. The issue of homosexual marriage and recognition and acceptance of it is a significant issue with that generation in terms of acceptance. They view any criticism of that as simply being judgmental. There are substantial differences in attitude between those over 40 and those under 40 regarding their views on marriage. And that has a lot to do with how they view sexuality and how they view sexual morals. It reflects a major, major shift.
These things are evident in the mainstream of culture through the decision-makers that we elect to Congress. They reflect the mores of the culture and the values of the everyday citizen, even though in this country, there is probably a majority who hold moderate conservative beliefs and views. They are either not showing up at the polls to vote or don’t register to vote—many evangelicals didn’t even register to vote in the last election, much less show up to vote—and so their voice is not heard. When their voice is not heard, then the culture takes a default position and slides ever more speedily into the morass of moral relativism. We get sucked down into that quicksand of secularism, immorality, moral relativism, and it just becomes harder to extricate ourselves until we reach the point of no return. There are some today who believe we have reached the point of no return and that this country will never turn back. It has completely failed the test of prosperity. It is not impossible, but it usually is unlikely.
And this puts us as believers in very different circumstances than we were in 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. This means we have to think differently about our country, about the Constitution, about our role as Christians within the culture. Because we live now as a minority in this culture in terms of what we believe. People are increasingly calling in to talk shows and using the phone lines, who have felt that, with a series of Supreme Court decisions over the past 20-30 years, opinions that were once mainstream, normal, and patriotic American views have been rendered unconstitutional today.
Many evangelical Christians (mainly white evangelical Christians) have basically had their opinions declared unconstitutional over the last 20-30 years. This leads to a tremendous amount of frustration, but we must recognize that there was never a guarantee that this country would remain on the course it once had. This means that we have to change our viewpoint. We now function not much differently from the apostle Paul and the early Christians within the pagan environment of the Greco-Roman culture. Therefore, we must consider our relationship to the culture in a manner more akin to that of the Bible. We are in a hostile environment. That doesn’t mean we react in anger, in bitterness, in revolution, or any of the things that people are heard saying out of frustration and anger. We must deal with the culture in grace, and we must work even more diligently to ensure that we shine as lights in a wicked and perverse generation.
We see how Paul handled the adversity of ministering in the midst of persecution and opposition in this chapter. We see a positive response in vv. 10-15, and the negative response when he is in Thessalonica.
We are on the second missionary journey. Paul had a ministry in Philippi where he cast a demon out of a slave girl who was a fortune-teller. Because of that, it impacted the wallets of her owners, there was a strong negative response, and he was accused of going against the culture and the norms of Rome. This is the same kind of thing that we will hear as Christians. We will be accused of not being very Christian, of not being very loving. We have already listened to this and have heard it for a long time. We are not accepting, we are intolerant; a huge list of false charges is presented. Yet, what we see is that the apostle Paul does not necessarily respond to the false charges as much as he responds by clearly articulating his message.
Acts 17:1
Acts 17:1
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Thessalonica was the largest and most significant city, a harbor town, and a strategically located city. It was a seat of the Roman government, and so there was a strong Roman presence there.
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:2
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
One of the important doctrines illustrated in this story concerns the apostle Paul’s presentation of the gospel and his teaching from Scripture. We see in the book of Acts that Luke employs a variety of synonyms to relate what the apostles did with the Scriptures. There are words such as kerusso, which means that they proclaimed the gospel. Another word, euangelizo, means that they gave the good news, and another, katangello, which has more to do with announcing. But here we have another word which means to reason—διαλέγομαι--DIALEGOMAI.
KERUSSO – Proclaim the Good News
EUNGELIZO – Give the Good News
KATANGELLO – Announcing the Good News
DIALEGOMAI -- Discuss/Reason the Good News
The verb form is used here from which we get our word ‘dialogue.’ The usage at the time was to dispute something, to discuss something, to ponder, reflect upon something, to consider or to reason. It has to do in this context where Paul is reasoning with them a logical, rational defense of his position that Jesus is the Messiah. He is doing apologetics. That is what the word means in 2 Peter 3:15—to make a defense, to give a logically constructed, rational case for the gospel: that Jesus is the predicted Messiah of the Old Testament.
2 Peter 3:15
2 Peter 3:15
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
One of the trends today in evangelical scholarship is to deny that is very much messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. A lot of these scholars say (these aren’t liberals, they are allegedly conservative evangelical scholars) there is only one, Psalm 110. So what did Jesus talk to the disciples about on the road to Emmaus in Luke chapter 24?
We see the use of this word dialegomai several times in relation to Paul.
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:2
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:17
Acts 17:17
17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.
Acts 18:4
Acts 18:4
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 18:19
Acts 18:19
19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 19-8-9
Acts 19-8-9
8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
And this is the way a pastor taught the Word: presenting a logical case and going through it step by step. He is not using emotive terms; he is not just giving a motivational message. He presents a rationally constructed case for what Scripture teaches. This is further developed in the next verse.
Acts 17:3
Acts 17:3
3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.”
He reasoned by explaining and giving evidence. These two words are participles that describe how he reasoned. Where did he get evidence that The Messiah had to suffer? He went to passages like Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12 in the Old Testament that demonstrate that the Messiah had to suffer. This was probably an excellent eye-opener for his audience because, at this time in history, in Judaism, they believed that the Messiah was more of a political deliverer than one who would come to suffer. So, he is opening the Scripture to them literally.
The word “explaining” is the Greek διανοίγω--DIANOIGO, which literally means to open something up or to reveal or expose something. It is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew patach, which means to open something. A variation of patach is used to refer to the naïve or the simple ones in Proverbs.
The second word, ‘demonstrating,’ is the Greek word παρατίθημι--PARATITHEMI, which means to set something before one. It is used numerous times to refer to somebody preparing a table for dinner—setting everything out for someone so that they can then use them.
In terms of Paul’s reasoning of the Scriptures he is doing two things. He is opening up the Scriptures, exposing that the Scripture teaches. And he is laying it out in front of his audience to that they can clearly see what the Scripture teaches. These are not terms that describe some sort of emotional, motivational speech. It is describing rational discourse, instruction. He is showing them from the Old Testament a) that Christ had to suffer, and b) that He had to rise again from the dead.
Then Paul says, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
He is making it clear that Jesus is the Messiah, and the way you know it is because you see it unfolding in the Old Testament prophecies. There are over 100 Old Testament prophecies that were literally fulfilled at the first advent of Jesus Christ.
This is what Peter means in 2 Peter 3:15.
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
This is given as a mandate by Peter, that we are to always be ready to explain the gospel and to defend why we believe it.
The result: Acts 17:4
Acts 17:4
Acts 17:4
4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
This is the word peitho, and it means somebody listens to the evidence, becomes convinced of the evidence, and believes.
“… and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.”
The God-fearing Greeks refers to a large number of proselytes.
From about 50 BC up until about 50 AD, and maybe even a little bit beyond, there was a tremendous amount of curiosity in the Greco-Roman world about Judaism and the Jewish God. Many times synagogues had more Gentile God-fearers in them than they did Jews. They didn’t go all the way to full submission to the Mosaic Law but they certainly were at least partially committed in studying the Old Testament, seeking God; evidence of their positive volition.
At this point Paul hasn’t gone out into the Agora with the gospel, he is just explaining it to “the Jew first, then to the Gentile,” and as he is explaining this in the synagogue a great multitude of the Gentiles there believed and responded to the gospel, including several of the leading women. Apparently, after three weeks in the synagogue, enough opposition had developed that they began to meet apart from the synagogue.
They “joined” with Paul—προσκληρόω--PROSKLEROO, from the verb kleroo, meaning to call. It comes to mean joining together in the church. The word for “church,” ekklesia, is from the same root. This has the idea of their unity in the body of Christ. Notice that it is an aorist passive indicative: they don’t perform the action; they receive the action. This suggests that what Luke is indicating here is that, as they believed, God was uniting the believers together in the body of Christ.
The contrast, the reaction. Hostility comes from people who are self-righteous, set in their own ways, and would rather follow tradition and human autonomous reason and experience. In this case, it was the Jews who followed the traditions of their fathers, the teaching that had developed after Ezra in the development of rabbinical theology in the Second Temple period. They were not persuaded. It seems to be a large majority of Jews in the synagogue.
Acts 17:5
Acts 17:5
5 But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Envy is part of the lust motivation of the sin nature. They desire something that they don’t have, thinking it will make them happy, and so it is part of the early stages of a frantic search for happiness. They become envious and jealous that the apostle Paul is drawing people away from their synagogue. So, it is a matter of pride, a matter of losing face as it were, and so they become envious. They begin to stir up the masses, the low-lifes at the edges of the marketplace. Here we have the word ἀγοραῖος--AGORIOS, which is a word meaning those who belong to the marketplace, the homeless drifters who hung out around the Agora seeking maybe an opportunity to swindle people. So, the Jews are going to get them stirred up against Paul, Timothy, and Silas.
The words “set in an uproar” is the same verb θορυβέω-THORUBEO, meaning to stir up trouble, to cause trouble. It basically meant a riot.
Then they are going to attack Jason's house. There is a Jason mentioned in Romans 16, but it is not certain that it is the same Jason. This is the name of one of the Jewish leaders of the synagogue who had responded to the gospel, and this is where Paul, Silas, and Timothy have been staying. The mob is trying to bring these out to the people. The word “people” here is the word demos. It is the first part of the word from which we derive our word "democracy," and it simply refers to the people. What is interesting is that this word has a couple of different nuances in Greek, depending on it was used in the context. In some contexts, it refers to the mob; in another context, it refers to the leaders of the people. It is a little uncertain here because it could go either way. A mob has gathered in this chapter, surrounding the house of Jason, and they take Jason and some of the other believers out to the rulers of the city. This could be the demos, because what they wanted to do in Acts 17:5 was take them out to the people. This could be the rulers of the people. And that is in fact what they do with Jason and the other brethren, and they bring a false charge against them.
How many times have we seen misrepresentations of the conservative Christian position by the secular media? The polls have shown that very few in the media are “religious” in any broad sense of the term. They don’t go to church; they don’t have respect for religious opinions or beliefs. Therefore, the people in the media don't accurately reflect the norms and standards of many Americans, and they often present a distorted picture because they lack a thorough understanding of the topics they discuss. It is foreign to them. And another thing is that many Christians don’t understand Christianity and misrepresent themselves, so that just adds to the confusion.
End of July 13, 2025
End of July 13, 2025
Sunday, July 20, 2025
Sunday, July 20, 2025
Opposition and Acceptance. Acts 17:1-15
Opposition and Acceptance. Acts 17:1-15
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 17
Let’s reread our text
Acts 17:1
Acts 17:1
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Here is a little bit tighter and closer view
Thessalonica was the largest and most significant city, a harbor town, and a strategically located city. It was a seat of the Roman government, and so there was a strong Roman presence there.
Acts 17:2-5
Acts 17:2-5
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. 5 But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:2
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
One of the important doctrines illustrated in this story concerns the apostle Paul’s presentation of the gospel and his teaching from Scripture. We see in the book of Acts that Luke employs a variety of synonyms to relate what the apostles did with the Scriptures. There are words such as kerusso, which means that they proclaimed the gospel. Another word, euangelizo, means that they gave the good news, and another, katangello, which has more to do with announcing. But here we have another word which means to reason—διαλέγομαι--DIALEGOMAI.
KERUSSO – Proclaim the Good News
EUNGELIZO – Give the Good News
KATANGELLO – Announcing the Good News
DIALEGOMAI -- Discuss/Reason the Good News
The verb form is used here from which we get our word ‘dialogue.’ The usage at the time was to dispute something, to discuss something, to ponder, reflect upon something, to consider or to reason. It has to do in this context where Paul is reasoning with them a logical, rational defense of his position that Jesus is the Messiah. He is doing apologetics. That is what the word means in 2 Peter 3:15—to make a defense, to give a logically constructed, rational case for the gospel: that Jesus is the predicted Messiah of the Old Testament.
2 Peter 3:15
2 Peter 3:15
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
One of the trends today in evangelical scholarship is to deny that is very much messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. A lot of these scholars say (these aren’t liberals, they are allegedly conservative evangelical scholars) there is only one, Psalm 110. So what did Jesus talk to the disciples about on the road to Emmaus in Luke chapter 24?
We reviewed, last week, various passages where DIALEGOMAI is used.
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:2
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:17
Acts 17:17
17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.
Acts 18:19
Acts 18:19
19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 18:4
Acts 18:4
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 19:8-9
Acts 19:8-9
8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
And this is the way a pastor taught the Word: presenting a logical case and going through it step by step. He is not using emotive terms; he is not just giving a motivational message. He presents a rationally constructed case for what Scripture teaches. This is further developed in the next verse.
Acts 17:3
Acts 17:3
3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.”
He reasoned by explaining and giving evidence. These two words are participles that describe how he reasoned. Where did he get evidence that The Messiah had to suffer? He went to passages like Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12 in the Old Testament that demonstrate that the Messiah had to suffer. This was probably an excellent eye-opener for his audience because, at this time in history, in Judaism, they believed that the Messiah was more of a political deliverer than one who would come to suffer. So, he is opening the Scripture to them literally.
The word “explaining” is the Greek διανοίγω--DIANOIGO, which literally means to open something up or to reveal or expose something. It is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew patach, which means to open something. A variation of patach is used to refer to the naïve or the simple ones in Proverbs.
The second word, ‘demonstrating,’ is the Greek word παρατίθημι--PARATITHEMI, which means to set something before one. It is used numerous times to refer to somebody preparing a table for dinner—setting everything out for someone so that they can then use them.
In terms of Paul’s reasoning of the Scriptures he is doing two things. He is opening up the Scriptures, exposing that the Scripture teaches. And he is laying it out in front of his audience to that they can clearly see what the Scripture teaches. These are not terms that describe some sort of emotional, motivational speech. It is describing rational discourse, instruction. He is showing them from the Old Testament a) that Christ had to suffer, and b) that He had to rise again from the dead.
Then Paul says, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
He is making it clear that Jesus is the Messiah, and the way you know it is because you see it unfolding in the Old Testament prophecies. There are over 100 Old Testament prophecies that were literally fulfilled at the first advent of Jesus Christ.
This is what Peter means in 2 Peter 3:15.
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
This is given as a mandate by Peter, that we are to always be ready to explain the gospel and to defend why we believe it.
The result: Acts 17:4
Acts 17:4
Acts 17:4
4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
This is the word peitho, and it means somebody listens to the evidence, becomes convinced of the evidence, and believes.
“… and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.”
The God-fearing Greeks refers to a large number of proselytes.
From about 50 BC up until about 50 AD, and maybe even a little bit beyond, there was a tremendous amount of curiosity in the Greco-Roman world about Judaism and the Jewish God. Many times synagogues had more Gentile God-fearers in them than they did Jews. They didn’t go all the way to full submission to the Mosaic Law but they certainly were at least partially committed in studying the Old Testament, seeking God; evidence of their positive volition.
At this point Paul hasn’t gone out into the Agora with the gospel, he is just explaining it to “the Jew first, then to the Gentile,” and as he is explaining this in the synagogue a great multitude of the Gentiles there believed and responded to the gospel, including several of the leading women. Apparently, after three weeks in the synagogue, enough opposition had developed that they began to meet apart from the synagogue.
They “joined” with Paul—προσκληρόω--PROSKLEROO, from the verb kleroo, meaning to call. It comes to mean joining together in the church. The word for “church,” ekklesia, is from the same root. This has the idea of their unity in the body of Christ. Notice that it is an aorist passive indicative: they don’t perform the action; they receive the action. This suggests that what Luke is indicating here is that, as they believed, God was uniting the believers together in the body of Christ.
The contrast, the reaction. Hostility comes from people who are self-righteous, set in their own ways, and would rather follow tradition and human autonomous reason and experience. In this case, it was the Jews who followed the traditions of their fathers, the teaching that had developed after Ezra in the development of rabbinical theology in the Second Temple period. They were not persuaded. It seems to be a large majority of Jews in the synagogue.
Acts 17:5
Acts 17:5
5 But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Envy is part of the lust motivation of the sin nature. They desire something that they don’t have, thinking it will make them happy, and so it is part of the early stages of a frantic search for happiness. They become envious and jealous that the apostle Paul is drawing people away from their synagogue. So, it is a matter of pride, a matter of losing face as it were, and so they become envious.
They begin to stir up the masses, the low-lifes, or evil men, ανδρας πονηρους--ANDRAS PONEROUS at the edges of the marketplace. Here we have the word ἀγοραῖος--AGORIOS, which is a word meaning those who belong to the marketplace, the homeless drifters who hung out around the Agora seeking maybe an opportunity to swindle people. So, the Jews are going to get them stirred up against Paul, Timothy, and Silas.
The words “set in an uproar” is the same verb θορυβέω-THORUBEO, meaning to stir up trouble, to cause trouble. It basically meant a riot. Today we euphemistically call this a peaceful protest.
Then they are going to attack Jason's house. There is a Jason mentioned in Romans 16, but it is not certain that it is the same Jason. This is the name of one of the Jewish leaders of the synagogue who had responded to the gospel, and this is where Paul, Silas, and Timothy have been staying. The mob is trying to bring these out to the people. The word “people” here is the word demos. It is the first part of the word from which we derive our word "democracy," and it simply refers to the people.
What is interesting is that this word has a couple of different nuances in Greek, depending on how it was used in context. In some contexts, it refers to the mob; in another context, it refers to the leaders of the people. It is a little uncertain here because it could go either way.
So a peaceful protest aka a mob has gathered in this chapter, surrounding the house of Jason, and they take Jason and some of the other believers out to the rulers of the city.
This could be the demos, because what they wanted to do in Acts 17:5 was take them out to the people. Demos could be a reference to the rulers of the people.
And that is in fact what they do with Jason and the other brethren, and they bring a false charge against them.
Acts 17:6-7
Acts 17:6-7
6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too. 7 Jason has harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus.”
They use the word ἀναστατόω--ANASTATOO which has the basic idea in Greek of agitating, subverting or overthrowing. They are calling them rebels, agitators.
How hypocritical … the ones who are agitating, are accusing those who are not agitating of being agitators.
Some things never change. There is a saying “second verse, same as the first ...” Some songs are repeated throughout history, because they are effective.
Paul refers to this in 1 Thessalonians 2:14
1 Thessalonians 2:14
1 Thessalonians 2:14
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans,
The analogy is that just as the Christians in Judea had faced opposition and persecution from the Pharisees and the Sadducees, so these too in Thessalonica were facing opposition from their own countrymen.
1 Thessalonians 2:15-16
1 Thessalonians 2:15-16
15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.
So in 1 Thessalonians, Paul puts the opponents in Thessalonica in the same stream as the religious legalists at the time of Christ, and the idolaters in the Old Testament who persecuted and killed the prophets and persecuted and killed the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is it that the message of the rabble-rousers is?
What Paul, Silas, and Timothy are doing is overturning the whole world. But what Paul says is that what they, the Jews, were doing was contrary to or against all men in forbidding to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.
This opposition was coming from the Jewish leadership and the Jewish community at the synagogue, prohibiting them from preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.
The heart of their accusation: “They all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar.” They are political subversives, rebelling against the authority of Caesar. This would render them guilty of treason and subject them to the death penalty. So, they are raising that specter before the judges in Thessalonica. “…saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
Where did we see that before? This is the same kind of claim that the Pharisees and the Sadducees brought against Jesus at the time of the crucifixion.
Acts 17:8
Acts 17:8
8 And they troubled the crowd and the rulers of the city when they heard these things.
The word “stirred up” is ταράσσω-TARASSO which means to trouble or disturb.
This puts the authorities on a spot and so they took a bond basically, from Jason and the rest and then let them go.
Acts 17:9
Acts 17:9
9 So when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
In other words they extorted them financially, in another sense they had to pay bail.
This has really disturbed the peace in Thessalonica, which had an estimated population of between 50 and 100,000 in the first century.
Acts 17:10
Acts 17:10
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Timothy is not mentioned, but he does show up in Berea. Again, Paul follows the same procedure that he has followed in other places. He doesn’t let the fact that he is getting opposition from the Jews stop him. He knows that his mission is to give the gospel. And that is the mission of every single believer. It doesn’t mean we do it in an in-your-face or antagonistic manner, but when we are proclaiming the truth many times, it will be taken as an in-your-face, antagonistic assault. It’s simply because we are addressing someone negatively. They are arrogant, and we confirm this by proclaiming the gospel to them. We are exposing the idolatry of their soul, and they don’t want that exposed.
They are pulling back the curtain on their “suppression of truth in unrighteousness,” and they react in anger and hostility. That doesn’t slow Paul down one little bit. His faith is in the Lord, and that is his courage. He is not seeking confrontation, but he is not avoiding confrontation based on the gospel.
But here he gets a very different response.
Acts 17:11
Acts 17:11
11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
The indication here is that they have a level of objectivity; the synagogue had more positive persons truly interested in the things of God, more than the things of religion. When they heard the gospel, it challenged them.
The word “noble-minded” is derived from the Greek εὐγενής--EUGENES, from which we derive the idea of high or noble birth. It is used metaphorically for attitude. They received the word and searched the Scripture. “With great eagerness” indicates a true excitement and openness to what Paul said. They are enthusiastic about the message, and they searched the Scriptures, and the word there means to examine in detail. It is a term used in legal investigations.
End of 1st Service 7/20/25
End of 1st Service 7/20/25
We see this searching in other verses such as Acts 24:8; 28:18; 1 Corinthians 2:14.
Acts 24:8
Acts 24:8
8 commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.”
Acts 28:18
Acts 28:18
18 who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there was no cause for putting me to death.
1 Corinthians 2:14-15
1 Corinthians 2:14-15
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
They searched the Scriptures daily. These are unbelievers initially, but they hear the claim of Paul, and they hear him present a logical case from the Old Testament. They don’t just take his word for it; they go home and search the Scriptures themselves to make sure that he is accurately handling the Word. This is a great verse that every believer ought to take to heart. You don’t just believe the pastor because he attended a particular seminary, holds a certain degree, and is smarter than I am. Every believer in a congregation should be, if they have been a believer for any length of time, equipped well enough in the Scriptures to be able to keep check on a pastor from going out of bounds doctrinally. The fact that we live in a world today where that just doesn’t happen is another indictment of the modern church.
Result: Acts 17:12
Acts 17:12
Acts 17:12
12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.
But what happens?
Acts 17:13-14
Acts 17:13-14
13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds. 14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul away, to go to the sea; but both Silas and Timothy remained there.
Apparently, Paul was the real lightning rod for the opposition, likely due to his previous training.
Acts 17:15
Acts 17:15
15 So those who conducted Paul brought him to Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed.
What we learn elsewhere is that Silas and Timothy had returned to Thessalonica and would eventually rejoin Paul in Corinth. That is when Paul writes the first epistle to the Thessalonians.
======
Athens: Understand Your Audience. Acts 17:16-34
Athens: Understand Your Audience. Acts 17:16-34
We are now in Athens, and this is one of three passages in Acts where the Apostle Paul’s message is recorded. There is also one in Antioch, as mentioned in Acts 13, and another in Acts 20. It is in these three different messages of Paul that we get a glimpse of the core of his message. There is a different audience each time, and it is essential to cater to that. One of the great axioms of military strategy is to know your enemy. While the person we are witnessing to isn’t quite an enemy, it is somebody we need to understand if we are going to articulate the gospel clearly. Paul doesn’t have a canned approach. He doesn’t go after each audience the same way. Because people come from different backgrounds, have different education levels, and are at different locations along the path, we might say that in coming to faith in Christ. Some have never heard anything about Christianity. Others have heard quite a bit about Christianity, and almost all we have to do is breathe hard, and they will fall over in faith in Christ. They have heard the gospel, have maybe been raised in the church, and the terminology is familiar to them, but they have never quite reached the point where they have realized that they personally need to believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. We never know who people are or where they come from, so we need to be engaged in asking them questions and learning about their backgrounds.
In Acts 13:15-41, we studied Paul’s address to the Jews in the synagogue in Antioch extensively. It was interesting to see how he applied what they knew to present the gospel. He had a firm understanding. In the text, we have an abbreviated version of what Paul said, not everything he said. This is how many of the discourses in Scripture are handled. They are not summaries; they are divinely edited snapshots of what was said. Not every word the person spoke at the time is recorded in Scripture, but every word given in Scripture is. Paul has an assumption that he makes in Acts 13, that is, that his audience is made up of Jews who understand and believe the Torah and Gentiles who were God-fearers. So, he doesn’t need to define specific terms for them. When he talks about God, they share a common understanding of that particular word. They know they are both speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His starting point is the Old Testament and its prophecies related to the Messiah.
But when we come to Acts 17:17-31, we have a completely different audience, which is made up of the intelligentsia of the Greek world in Athens, which was one of the three foremost university towns in the ancient world (Rome, Athens, Alexandria). When Paul talks to them, he doesn’t assume that they understand or share a common foundation in the truths found in Genesis 1-11. He is not going to take that for granted; he must define his terms. We will see that as he attempts to communicate the gospel to these pagans in Athens, when he mentions Jesus and the resurrection, they are not even sure what he is talking about; they immediately redefine his terms and think he is referring to two new gods they can incorporate into their pantheon. It is an excellent example of how the unbelieving mind can take what we say in certain evangelistic situations and completely twist and distort it, because they have been in the situation of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness for so long that no genuine communication can take place. So, we have to work down to basics.
But that doesn’t apply to everybody. It is disturbing that some people believe every person needs to receive the same four basic points, and if they do, they have heard the gospel. This has been called drive-by evangelism: “I yelled, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” and therefore I did my evangelistic duty. I had no conversation with them, I don’t know if they understood anything that I said, but I witnessed to them because I just threw the gospel at them.” That is absurd and worthless. God, of course, can use anything. Still, when we examine the Scriptures and the examples of believers communicating with unbelievers, there is much more going on than simply citing a pat formula and then moving on. There is a conversation. There is a conversation with those who sometimes end up condemning, particularly with those who reject what has been taught. There is also an ongoing conversation and follow-up with people who have heard the truth and responded to it.
As we enter Acts 17, we need to take some time to see how Paul handles these skeptics, rationalists, philosophers, and self-proclaimed intelligentsia. What we are going to examine is Paul’s address to the Council of the Areopagus—a sort of oversight council in Athens—where he is going to explain to them what it is that he is teaching.
Andrew Deissmann, a great New Testament Greek scholar of the early last century comments on this address of Paul. Deissmann is best known for works like Light from the Ancient East and Bible Studies, where he argued that Paul’s writings were “real letters” — not literary epistles, but missionary documents written to specific communities in real historical contexts” Deissmann was historically grounded and so is in our camp in the sense of the context of history and the authenticity of scripture.
About Paul’s address, Deissman stated back at the turn of the last century:
“This is the greatest missionary document in the New Testament. I have taught through this passage several times and every time I finish with it I am always frustrated because I always feel like there is so much more that can be taken out the passage.”
Deissmann did refer to Paul’s speech in Acts 17 as “the greatest missionary document in the New Testament,” especially in his work Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History
One of the things we want to do, to explain this a little better as we get into Acts 17:16ff, is to follow the basic procedure of what is called basic Bible study methods.
What we are really talking about here is how to present the gospel more effectively. God the Holy Spirit makes it clear to the individual, but that doesn’t give us an excuse to be ignorant, sloppy, or irresponsible in our presentation of the gospel. That is no excuse for intellectual laziness in presenting the gospel. We are to communicate as clearly and precisely as possible. The first principle is that in any evangelism, we must know the person we are talking to. We have to know our audience. That means we have to talk to them, to ask questions, find out what they think and what they understand. Paul understood his audience in Athens. He understood the philosophical systems of the Stoics and the Epicureans, and he drew on that knowledge in his presentation.
Don’t get into an argument. That completely distracts and diverts one from the point. It is not an ego contest. We make it as clear and straightforward as possible, and it's not about us being right.
Don’t use a formulaic gospel presentation. Often, as we develop our ability to communicate the gospel to people, we begin with foundational elements that provide a basic structure. But don’t be limited by that because what is going to be used for one person isn’t going to mean anything to somebody else. We need to gather the basic facts and engage in conversation with people, and then present the gospel.
In commentaries on this passage in Acts chapter 17, you will find, on the one hand, theologians discussing the fact that Paul draws on many aspects of Stoic and Epicurean thought to establish common ground between his views on Christianity and those of the Stoics and Epicureans. On the other hand, some argue that there is no common ground in this sense between the gospel and what these groups believed. The common ground is explained in Romans chapter one. It isn’t some other aspect; it is that every unbeliever has an internal awareness of God's existence. They have reached a state of God-consciousness, and in Romans 1, they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. And what we often do in evangelism is give them information that makes them mad as a hornet. Because they have been suppressing the truth for a long time, and we come along and tweak them with it.
How is it that somebody can be Jewish and Buddhist, and the rest of the Jews aren’t mad at them? You can be a Jewish Buddhist, but you can’t be a Jewish Christian. Jewish Christians believe everything that Judaism believes in the sense of the Mosaic authorship in the Torah, the God of the Old Testament, the absolutes of the Torah and the Ten Commandments. Yet, they believe a little bit more. Jewish Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah. You can’t be Jewish and believe that, but you can be Jewish and believe that there is no personal God, that God never spoke to Moses, that God never appeared on Mount Sinai, that there is no such thing as creation. You can believe all of these things that are 180 degrees contrary to the Torah and still be Jewish—unless you believe Jesus is the Messiah. Then you can’t be Jewish anymore. It is not logical.
One of the first things we have to understand when witnessing to people is that the problem isn’t logic. It is an issue of spiritual authority with God.
The four key elements in the development of any kind of Bible study.
1. Observation. We have to ask, what does the text say?
2. Interpretation. This answers the question, what does it mean? In other words, what did the original author intend to communicate to the original audience?
3. How does that fit with other parts of Scripture? This is called correlation where we compare Scripture with Scripture.
4. Application. What does it mean to me?
Anybody who has studied the Bible very much knows that the more time you spend in observation, the less time is needed to pay in interpretation, correlation, and application. Many people overlook observation. They don’t take enough time to ask what the text says, they immediately jump within five minutes to what am I supposed to do? And they don’t even understand what the passage says to begin with.
So, what does the text say? What is happening in this account as Paul comes into Athens.
There are six different sections here. The first is in 17:16-21. This occurred in March of 51 AD.
Acts 17:16-21
Acts 17:16-21
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? 20 For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.” 21 For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.
They are just intellectually promiscuous. They run around with any new idea that comes up and don’t take any time to really get serious about anything. That is what characterized them.
Then we have Paul’s response. Basically what we have just learned is that as he was talking about Jesus and the resurrection that has really caused them much confusion because it violates their belief system. The Areopagus is a place, Mars Hill. On top of Mars Hill they would convene a council of approximately thirty leaders who would evaluate somebody’s teaching. So there was the Council of the Areopagus which met on the top of the hill. Paul is going to be asked to explain in more detail what it is that he is teaching. This is what we refer to as Paul’s sermon, although it is not really a sermon per se, it is an explanation. He gives us an example of how he is reasoning, logically explaining what he is saying.
Belief in God is not illogical. Paul was intensely logical. It is just that unbelievers and cynics don’t like his first principles. Their first principle is that there is no God, end of story. Paul’s first principle is: you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness; there is a God and He is not a God who is within creation, He is outside of creation. So Paul is going to challenge the Athenians to worship the creator rather than the creature (vv. 22-31).
Paul is using this altar to the unknown god as a touchstone. He is not saying the unknown god is the God he is talking about. One of the reasons he is doing that is because Socrates was accused of introducing new ideas and new gods, and that brought a death penalty. Then he committed suicide. Most Greek communities had several idols to unknown deities just in case they missed one. They didn’t want to offend any god so they would have one or two or more that were to the unknown god, and so Paul uses this because it shows that they have this God-consciousness; that there is some sort of deity.
Acts 17:22-23
Acts 17:22-23
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
There is a play on words there because the Greek word that he uses for “religious” is daimonion, the word for demon. So if there was a Jew in the audience listening they would catch that there was a little tongue-in-cheek humor going on there because of the word that he used. All false religion has its source in Satan and so he uses a word that means superstitious or religious and is having a little bit of fun with them. He is going to proclaim God to them using this as a touchstone to the fact that it recognizes that they don’t know everything there is to know about gods.
The God that he defines (vv. 24-29) is unlike any deity ever imagined. The reason is that in their philosophical religious system all of the gods and goddesses were part of the same reality. There was no creation-creator distinction. All of the gods and goddesses were part of what has been called the scale of nature or the chain of being.
Paul immediately establishes that creation-creator distinction.
Acts 17:24-26
Acts 17:24-26
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
That is a great text for the divine institution #5 on nations. God determines the times, the rise and fall of nations, and their territorial boundaries.
Acts 17:27-29
Acts 17:27-29
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.
Then his challenge to them:
Acts 17:30-31
Acts 17:30-31
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
That immediately flies in the face of everything that the Greeks believed. They were strongly opposed to any idea of bodily resurrection. They immediately categorized Paul as somebody who was just absolutely nuts and saying it is impossible as far as they are concerned for there to be resurrection.
Acts 17:32-33
Acts 17:32-33
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” 33 So Paul departed from among them.
This ought to give all of us great confidence because this is Paul giving one of the best gospel presentations and he is rejected by almost everybody who listens to him. Just because people don’t listen to you and don’t respond to your gospel presentation doesn’t mean you haven’t effectively and accurately given it. It has to do with their volition. You have given it and God the Holy Spirit has made it clear to them; they have rejected it on their own because of their hostility toward God. However, there is always going to be some who respond.
Acts 17:34
Acts 17:34
34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Paul had a smaller response than at other times in his ministry.
====
Sunday, July 27, 2025
Sunday, July 27, 2025
Athens: GOD, Unknown gods, Stoics, Epicureans, Evolution, and the Chain of Being. Acts 17:16-31
Athens: GOD, Unknown gods, Stoics, Epicureans, Evolution, and the Chain of Being. Acts 17:16-31
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 17 where Paul has come to Athens and lectured on the Ariopagus.
Here is a little bit tighter and closer view
Now, we reviewed and read the account of Paul coming to Athens, addressing the educated intelligentsia there
The Stoics and Epicureans are the primary audience of Paul’s address, and he will introduce concepts such as evolution and something you may or may not be familiar with called the chain of being.
There are four divisions in Bible study methods:
1. Observation, which is what the text says?
2. Interpretation, which is what the text means.
3. Correlation, which is taking what we think the text means and comparing it with other Scripture.
4. Application.
If you spend a lot of time in observation, you spend less time in interpretation. If you don’t spend a lot of time in observation, your interpretation is probably not going to be correct, and that is going to mess up your application. A lot of people think that interpretation is what the text means to me. Mostly, I don’t care what the text means to you. I am only concerned about what the text meant to God the Holy Spirit and the human writer of Scripture. Once we can get that squared away, it is pretty apparent what God wants you and me to do.
Under observation, we ask the fundamental question: when, where, why, and how? Here, when we delve into this, Athens, located in ancient Greece, is now somewhat more past its glory days than it was in the 5th century BC. Paul presents a well-known message here, which I find is often not addressed in depth. If it is, it is often misunderstood. There are two major addresses by the apostle Paul, one in Acts 13 and one in Acts 17, and he addresses two different unbelieving groups. One is Jewish with a background in Old Testament truth, and one is purely pagan. There is a lot we can learn from these two presentations of the apostle Paul in presenting the gospel to different audiences.
The sermon in chapter 17 is in verses 22-31. He has an introduction, and he uses a touchstone off the ‘unknown god’. Then he uses that to introduce the God of creation, whom he does not identify as the unknown god. He describes God, focusing on God as the Creator, in vv. 24-29. This shows us why the doctrine of ex nihilo creation in Genesis chapter one is foundational. What you do with origins is the foundation of everything else that you think. That is, if you are logical and consistent. If you don’t have the right God, the God who stands outside of creation, everything else gets distorted. This becomes a bit tricky to handle because it requires a sophisticated understanding of the implications of these things.
Paul spends six verses describing God, and he challenges the audience with the implications. They all get upset because they can’t really understand what he is saying. That points up another extremely important reality. Which is, the more immersed your audience is in unbelief and the darkness of unbelief, the less capable they are of understanding what you say. We must reach a point where we know what we can do to do the best job possible and make the gospel as clear as possible. In spiritual depravity, the unbelievers are so much in darkness. And it is not up to us to make it perfectly clear; God the Holy Spirit does that. Paul made it as clear as he could without compromising the truth about God. He didn’t try to water things down, and he does have some converts. We must be careful because we live in a culture where if we don’t have a lot, we haven’t really done it right. The problem is that Noah stands as a judge against that view because he faithfully proclaimed the true gospel for over 100 years and had no converts. And he did it exactly right. Numbers may not tell the story.
Here in Athens, Paul is provoked by the idolatry, and he begins presenting the gospel to a group of intellectual, polytheistic pagans. Pagan is a technical term for people whose belief system is not influenced by a Judeo-Christian background. It is not a term that is pejorative; it is not an insult; it does not run somebody down.
Acts 17:16
Acts 17:16
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.
The word “provoked” is the Greek word παρωξύνετο--PAROXUNETO, which is a cognate of paroxysm, and it refers to a passion, of being upset, stirred up, or angry. Every time Paul turned around, there was another idol, another temple to another Greek god or goddess.
This is the apostle Paul, who grew up in a Greco-Roman culture in Tarsus, so he is not unfamiliar with this. But there was such a plethora of idols in Athens that it was said there were more than anywhere else in the ancient world. There was just a marketplace of religious options—every god you could think of. In case you left some out, that is where the title ‘to the unknown god’ came from; just in case you missed one.
You didn’t want to offend one, and so to make sure you covered all your bases, you put up an idol to the unknown god. It was not an idol to represent the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that they were unaware of; it was just another god in case they had missed one. But in their thinking, that god would be part of their pantheon. This was in Paul’s second missionary journey. It takes place in Athens and on the Areopagus (also known as Mars Hill).
Why is this in the Scripture? It is there in order to give us an illustration of the inability of unbelief to comprehend. Unbelief shrouds the mind in darkness, so that the unbeliever becomes so immersed in their unbelief that when we address them with our simple Christian jargon phrases, they don’t have a clue what we are talking about. This is what happens here. Paul mentions Jesus and Jesus’ resurrection (Iesous and anastasis), and they are thinking that Iesous and anastasis are two new gods to add to the shelf alongside all their other gods. This is what happens in unbelief. They don’t understand that when Paul talks about Jesus, he is talking about the creator God of the universe who stands separate and distinct from everything they have ever thought of as religion.
When he talks about resurrection, they can’t take that literally because for them, resurrection is the most ridiculous thing that anybody could ever think of, because in the Greek mind, if you died, your immaterial soul went to the place of the dead, Hades, and no one could return from Hades bodily. They can’t even fathom that somebody would talk about resurrection as a legitimate concept. So, what they are thinking is that they automatically assume and redefine what Paul has said. They assume that he can’t possibly believe there is a physical bodily resurrection, and so he must be talking about another god.
That is how the unbeliever’s mind works. You think you have made the gospel clear, and yet if you were to ask them to repeat it back to you, what you get has nothing to do with what you said. So we see here an illustration of unbelief’s inability to comprehend.
Acts 17:17
Acts 17:17
17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.
To anyone who walked by, Paul would strike up a conversation and use that as an opportunity to share the gospel.
The question is, how does he do it? So, we must ask how we can understand Paul’s strategy for blocking this envelopment strategy of unbelief. Unbelief tries to envelop what you have said about God, reinterpret it, and refashion it so that it fits within their frame of reference.
The reason we struggle with this analysis is that we are unfamiliar with Greco-Roman thought. We are not familiar with the thinking of the Stoics and the Epicureans, but we are very familiar with the kind of thinking of the average person on the street in America. Here, we need to understand the thought patterns of Greco-Roman culture, as well as those of the Stoics and Epicureans, to some extent.
Acts 17:18
Acts 17:18
18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.
The Greek word translated “babbler” is the compound word σπερμολόγος—SPERMALOGOS, sperma, meaning seed (talking about a little thing), and logos, referring to somebody who was an idea-picker—somebody who wanted to make themselves look brilliant, so they read a lot, listened to different people, and picked up all of the catch phrases and idioms of different erudite teachers. Then they would jumble them together to make themselves sound smart and sound well-read and intelligent, but they really didn’t make sense. They just used a lot of these ideas. That is what they are accusing Paul of: that he has all of this verbiage, and it sounds at the surface rather scholarly and erudite, but it just doesn’t mean anything. It is so incomprehensible that he is just another babbler. “… Others, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.”
Acts 17:19
Acts 17:19
19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak?
They want to evaluate what Paul is saying. It is not a trial.
Acts 17:20
Acts 17:20
20 For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.”
The question is, do they really want to know what they mean or are they just saying that out of a shallow intellectual curiosity that just wants to have their ears tickled, their minds stimulated, and yet really don’t want to know truth?
Acts 17:21
Acts 17:21
21 For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.
They didn’t want to know what the truth was, they just wanted a new theory or a new way of explaining things—a lot like professional educators in our culture!
Acts 17:22
Acts 17:22
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;
This is very tongue-in-cheek. The Jews in the audience were really chuckling because he had just insulted nearly everybody there.
He used the word δεισιδαίμων--DEISIDAIMON. Part of that word, daimon, is where we get our word “demon.” It is translated “religious” or “superstitious” or something of that nature. Still, there is a sort of double entendre there that indicates he is basically saying you are getting your ideas from the devil. Except for the truth of the gospel, all other ideas that make a competitive claim to truth against the Word of God ultimately come from the devil—the devil’s world competes with God’s truth.
Acts 17:23
Acts 17:23
23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
In their culture, the unknown god was just another god.
“Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:”
He is not saying this idol to the unknown god is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He makes a separate statement and says, “the one you worship without knowing.” In other words, you don’t know anything about him.
The dynamics of what is happening here. One of the most important doctrines to understand is the nature of the sin nature and arrogance of the person who has turned against God.
Romans 1:18
Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
The wrath of God isn’t a term for future judgment; it is a term for God’s judgment in historical time. We are examining a sub-category of men, a category defined by their tendency to suppress the truth. They have rejected the non-verbal revelation of God in the heavens and are seeking to redefine reality on their terms.
This word, translated as “suppress,” is κατέχω — KATECHO in Greek, a present active participle, which means it represents a continual action on their part. It characterizes them; they are truth suppressors. The meaning of the word has to do with preventing someone from doing something or causing it to be ineffective, to prevent it, to hinder, restrain, or hold down something. So it is to prevent something. What they are doing is prevent the knowledge of the truth from being exposed or being impressed upon their conscious mind. So they are pushing it down inside their soul. The last thing they want to know is the truth, and every time you do something to tweak the truth that they know, they get angry.
Culturally, we are seeing that in our current generation. For some years there have been groups such as atheists, homosexuals, secular humanists, and evolutionists who have been operating in a culture that has been predominantly Christian and influenced by Christianity. But their numbers have been growing, and now they have strength in numbers, and now they can let it all hang out. They write the most horrible letters to congressmen and pastors and anyone who wants to stand up in the culture and say that there is right and there is wrong, and right and wrong never change. And homosexual deviant behavior is deviant behavior and is a sin, just like any other sin. However, it is wrong, and we can’t call right wrong and wrong right; we must take a stand for the truth.
We live in a world today where people have so denied the existence of God and that we were created in God’s image that they are pushing that down and pushing it down into the sub-sub cellar of their soul. And what happens when a Christian comes along and says that behavior is wrong, all of a sudden, this truth that they are holding down starts to knock on the cellar door. When a bunch of Christians start getting vocal and the knocking gets louder, they get really angry because they think they have won the battle and have been able to push this entirely out of sight. They have been suppressing it. Another meaning for suppression has to do with confining it.
In Romans 1:18 God’s wrath is revealed against men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because
Romans 1:19
Romans 1:19
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
This is a dogmatic statement of Scripture. What can be known about God is known to every single human being, no matter how much they assert their atheism. The Word of God says that on the basis of the non-verbal witness of God in the heavens, every human being has enough evidence to know with certainty that God exists. God has shown it to them. And what are they doing with it? They are burying it within the sub-basement and trying to put a lock on that basement door.
Romans 1:20
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
What is going on here is the manifestation of the sin nature. The basic orientation of the sin nature is self-absorption, and when God comes along and says you are not supposed to be self-absorbed, you have to pay attention to Me, we want to bury Him down in the basement and lock the cellar door because it is not about Him, it is about me. Life is all about me, and the more we practice truth suppression, the more we give rein to arrogance and self-absorption. These are the basic arrogance skills that we develop, and when we increase our absorption with self, then we become more and more self-indulgent. We give in to every little thing we want to do. We spoil ourselves, and the more we spoil ourselves, the more we destroy our norms and standards. Then we have to justify it, so we become experts in self-justification.
What happens when somebody comes along with the truth is it exposes the lies that we tell ourselves. We don’t like that, so we get angry with those people. Self-justification practiced over time can lead to complete self-deception. We are so accustomed to thinking in the wrong way that when someone comes along and tries to explain the right way, it no longer makes sense to us. At that point, we have become so immersed in our own lies that it is almost impossible to recover. The end result of all this is self-deification.
Romans 1:21
Romans 1:21
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
When you are self-absorbed you can’t be very gracious or have much gratitude for things, especially if they go wrong.
“… but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
The darkness of unbelief shapes their thinking.
Romans 1:22-23
Romans 1:22-23
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
This is the background to developing idolatry. This was the problem in Athens: one idol after another.
Romans 1:24-25
Romans 1:24-25
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
That is the fundamental point that has happened in this decline and deterioration of negative volition. We end up serving and worshipping the creature rather than the creator. What makes Judeo-Christianity (Old and New Testament) unique and distinct among all of the world’s religions and philosophies is their doctrine of origins. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob created, ex nihilo—out of nothing. He is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the creation. He is totally distinct and totally other from the creation; He is not part of it.
The problem in all pagan religions and philosophies is that the gods or deities they discuss are part of the creation, because there is no ex nihilo creation. Matter or something is always present, always eternal, and everything develops out of that.
What is this thing called the chain of being? It was a commonly held teaching that, if you had anything to do with academia, from the Middle Ages up until the advent of modern science and Darwinism in the 19th century, and possibly in the late 18th century. It was also known as the continuity of being, the scala naturae, or the scale of nature, as described by Aristotle, and sometimes referred to as the chain of being. It refers to a hierarchy of static, unchanging forms with god [lower case] referred to as being itself in philosophical terms—the unmoved mover, the absolute, etc., at the top. Then there were angels in descending order. The reason they are all on the same scale is that they all participate in the same being. Some individuals possess more of this beingness, while others have less, and this difference depends on their position on the scale. So this being or the unmoved mover, as Aristotle put it, are angels, then humans, animals, plants, down to inanimate objects. Each object has its own object on the scale, and the movement is from the top down, and the forms are unchanging.
Multiple websites are pure evolutionary websites—Christian websites have been doing this for a long time—that trace pre-scientific evolution to the early Greek philosophers, and even further back to pagan religions, the whole idea of the scale of being.
Arthur Lovejoy wrote the classic work on the chain of being. It was called simply The Chain of Being. He says,
The essential and unbreakable links in the chain include the Divine Creator, the angelic heavenly the human, the animal, the world of plants and vegetation, and, the planet Earth itself with its minerals and waters.
So rocks and water participate in beingness, but not at the same level as God, who is at the top of the chain. God has the most, angels have a little bit less, humans have a little bit less, animals, and then plants, and then inanimate things. But they all participate out of the same chain of being.
This image became the basis for calling anything and everything sacred.
Pay attention to that. That, I think, has a role in the demonic roots of the modern environmental movement and the occult influences on the contemporary environmental movement. This is part of it, because everything becomes sacred if every one of us, from God to rocks, participates in the same being. Everything becomes equally sacred.
The scale of being was thus an essential social concept that was also used to justify many different types of social inequality.
So it was used to justify a lot of reasoning and arguments in favor of slavery. Whites are better than blacks, all the way down the chain. The more advanced races are superior to the primitive races, which is why the sub-title of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was Why the Superior Races Will Supplant the More Primitive Races. The theory of evolution is a justification of white supremacy, basically. All evolution and any belief in life based on evolution can’t escape that. They may not like it, but that is embedded in their philosophy of evolution.
The result was the conception of the plan and structure of the world, which through the Middle Ages and down to the late eighteenth century, men of philosophy, most men of science, and indeed most educated men, were to accept without question. This great chain of being is composed of an immense number of links, ranging in hierarchical order from the meagerest kind of existence, which barely escapes non-existence, through every possible grace, up to the ens perfectissimum …
That is, the perfect Being, which is God. The critical thing to note here is that everybody was held to a chain of being, which encompassed everybody. It excludes the creator-creature distinction. The Bible says God is totally different, totally other. He doesn’t share His being with us at all.
Here is what Darwin said:
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries the civilized races [white, European] of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races [colored races] throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphist apes will no doubt be exterminated, the break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state as we may hope even in the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon instead as now between the negro, Australian or the gorilla.
That is thrown out so everybody would understand what a racist Darwin was and what a racist philosophy Darwinism is.
Lovejoy says,
What the schoolmen called ens perfectissimum (the perfect being), the summit of the hierarchy of being, the ultimate and only completely satisfying object of contemplation and adoration, there can be little doubt that the idea of the good was the god of Plato, and there can be none that became the god of Aristotle.
This is the point. This god isn’t the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The god of Aristotle and the god of the philosophers, as well as the god of the pagans, was part of this continuity of beings, which originated from the Greeks and entered into the theologies of the Middle Ages.
The diagram: What we have at the top is God, in white, but you get less light as you go further down the line until you get down to astronomical, geophysical environment, including the climate! So climate shares in being, so the climate is now sacred. This is so modern! We didn’t come up with these ideas, but we need to understand their origins.
Alexander Pope in his Essay on Man put it this way:
Vast chain of being, which from God began,
Natures ethereal, human, angel, man
Beast, bird, fish, insect! what no eye can see,
No glass can reach! from Infinite to thee,
From thee to Nothing! -- On superior pow'rs
Were we to press, inferior might on ours:
Or in the full creation leave a void,
Where, one step broken, the great scale's destoy'd:
From Nature's chain whatever link you strike,
Tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.
What is his point? Everything is interconnected and linked together in this great chain. That is where Greek pagan thought originates, that is where modern Western European thought originates, that is where postmodern thought originates, and that is where all pagan thought originates.
When we understand something of the Epicureans and the Stoics, we can understand why Paul does what he does. And we are talking to the same kind of people on the streets today. They may not have the terminology down and may never have heard of Aristotle or Plato, but they think that way. Paul understood that. That is why he presented the gospel in that way. And the way he did it is really simple. The issue is that Paul is not going to sacrifice the doctrine, the creator-creature distinction, when he witnesses to them. There is no compromise in finding some common ground between the human viewpoint and the divine viewpoint, because the human viewpoint or worldly thinking has nothing in common with the thinking of God. Too many people compromise biblical truth in order to make it more palatable to pagans. Pagans don’t want it to be palatable; they want it to be so suppressed and buried in the basement that they will never hear from it again.
Our job is to give the gospel and to shine as lights in exposing the darkness.
==
Athens: GOD, Unknown gods, Stoics, Epicureans, Evolution, and the Chain of Being Part 2. Acts 17:16-31
Athens: GOD, Unknown gods, Stoics, Epicureans, Evolution, and the Chain of Being Part 2. Acts 17:16-31
Paul knows something when he is talking to an unbeliever. He knows that deep inside their soul they know God exists. They understand that truth, but they are rejecting it, so basically, what Paul’s strategy is, in a simple way, when he is communicating to an unbeliever, is to tweak that suppressed truth. Dr. Dean describes this as similar to when a Jack-in-the-box suddenly pops up; that suppressed truth is going to pop-up and move from being suppressed to being out in the open. Then the person has to respond one way or the other—usually in anger and resentment. That is what the Holy Spirit uses. If we look at John 16, Jesus talks about the fact that the Holy Spirit will convince the world (unbelievers) of sin, righteousness, and judgment. That is what the Holy Spirit uses to convict people of the truth. So when we think about witnessing and communicating the gospel to unbelievers, it is not just a matter of shooting them with our gospel gun. It is not just a matter of doing drive-by evangelism, where we throw a tract at them and simply say, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.' But we enter into a conversation with the individual, treating them as a person, and sometimes this ends up being a lifelong conversation. Sometimes it takes two or three times going over the gospel with people, but maybe even dozens of times over a period of decades before they respond to the gospel. And throughout that time, God the Holy Spirit is working.
Remember that the Apostle Paul probably heard the gospel dozens of times before the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus. So, when that happened as he was headed to Damascus, he had a clear understanding of who Jesus was and knew exactly what Jesus had done. He had a clear grasp of the gospel so that as soon as he saw the risen, resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, he immediately responded in faith because it was that last piece of evidence that gave him that knowledge of the gospel.
So Paul knows precisely the kind of person he is talking to at the Areopagus because he himself was that kind of intellectual target audience who kept rejecting the gospel. He is not going to let his audience hide behind some sort of subterfuge, some kind of camouflage technique used to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He is going to be very clear.
His sermon in vv. 22-31 explains what he is teaching. The introduction begins by using the idol to the unknown god as a starting point for his talk. He doesn’t view this as a point of common ground; he is not saying that this “unknown god” is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; he just says this shows and is indicative of their God-consciousness. Now he is going to tell them about the real God.
He gives a description of God, focusing on God as the creator, and that is so important as we will see in vv. 24-29. And then he challenges them in verses 30 and 31.
Acts 17:22
Acts 17:22
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;
That word “religious” is the Greek word deisidaimon—the last part daimon is translated “demon”—and he is using this word because in Greek it also had the connotation of being religious or superstitious. He is sort of tweaking them a little bit because he is using a word that also has this implication of demonic. He is indicating that the source of their religious system and their superstition has its origin in Satan and the demonic.
Acts 17:23
Acts 17:23
23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
We need to examine how the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks viewed the concept of the chain of being. This will help us understand why Paul takes this approach with the Stoics and the Epicureans. He is not emphasizing God as the creator because that just seemed like a good idea. He has a strategy, and that is something we ought to consider when witnessing to people. Every person is different, and we need to consider several different strategies for communicating the gospel to people and truly listen when explaining it, so that we understand whether they are hearing us correctly.
So, let's understand a little bit about these ideas of origins, how these different cultures and religious systems viewed how life ultimately began. And the one thing they have in common is that matter is eternal, just like the Big Bang theory. If you push everything back according to modern views of origins and evolution, it all goes back to some super-compressed, dense mass of matter that exploded. Well, where did that matter come from? If we examine these primitive stories about origins, they all begin with something that is already there. There is no creation out of nothing.
Quote from The Book of Knowing the Evolutions of Ra and Of Overthrowing Apep.
This is an Egyptian document, and E. Wallis Budge, one of the foremost Egyptologists of the 20th century, notes that the word rendered in English as “evolutions” in Egyptian is kheperu.
It is derived from a root word which means to make, to fashion, to produce, to form, or to become. It is a creation-type term. And it has a derived sense of “to roll”, rolling something.
In the text the words are placed in the mouth of the god Nebertecher, the lord of the universe—and he is also the sun god Ra, and he says,
“I am he who came in to being in the form of the god kheperu (translation: I came in the form of the god evolution, change) and I was the creator of that which came into being.”
So there is this god that comes out of him. How do we know? Regarding his own origin, we have this statement: “I came into being from primordial matter.” How does that differ from the Big Bang? The primordial matter was already in existence, and the god came out of this matter. He is part of the universe; he is not separate from it. “And I appeared under the form of multitudes of things from the beginning. Nothing existed at that time (primordial matter did!) and it was I who made whatever was made. I made all the forms into which I appeared by means of the god-soul, which I raised up Nu (the sky goddess).”
All of these gods and goddesses are basically part of matter, a part of creation. They are all part of the same beingness, as we will see. A similar structure is observed when examining Babylonian mythological cosmology. They don’t have an ex nihilo creation either. They have these gods that are really matter. They are a part of the creation. Mankind and everything in creation are created out of something from these gods and goddesses. They are really personifications of matter. What is eternal? Matter is eternal.
What happens today in many Old Testament faculties is that they hold views that the Babylonian and Egyptian mythologies were written, and where did Moses live? He grew up in Egypt and drew his ideas for Genesis chapter one from the Egyptians and the Babylonians. And they say what we need to do is understand Genesis chapter one in light of the Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies.
So, they retranslate.
They translate the beginning of Genesis chapter one, “In the beginning.”
That begins with the Hebrew preposition bu, which normally means “in,” but it can mean “when”. So, they translate this as, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void.”
What they have done is pollute the ex nihilo creation of Genesis 1:1 by suggesting that this verse says the same thing as all these other pagan mythologies. What they are saying is that when God began to create matter, it was already there. This initiates a process and rationale for compromising with evolutionary beliefs, resulting in an increasing number of Bible colleges, seminaries, and schools abandoning any literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. And it affects people of all kinds.
What the Greeks thought of creation. According to Orpheus, their view was that time existed before the universe. There was no actual beginning. This is one reason why, when we teach Genesis 1:1, we emphasize that Genesis 1:1 isn’t simply a topical sentence. It is not parallel to Genesis 2:4. Genesis 1:1 is a clear statement of ex nihilo creation. Genesis 1:2 then breaks, and there is a contrastive conjunction “But … the earth became formless and void,” indicating some sort of transformation from the original created state. We believe that the Satanic rebellion occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. If you don’t put it there, then we don’t have anything in the Bible that talks about the beginnings of evil, the beginnings of Satan, or the beginnings of even the universe.
The Greeks believed that time was cyclical, meaning that history repeats itself over and over again, ad infinitum, for eternity – it had always been. There is no actual beginning. Time is always there, and then time generates chaos. See, some people want to say, “Chaos! That’s like without form and void. See, that’s where the Bible got it.” It is just a perversion of what the Bible originally taught. They are suppressing the truth and re-explaining things. Their view was time-generated chaos, an enormous space containing night, mist, and the upper regions of the air, or what they called the ether. Time commanded, and the mists spun around with such speed that the mass congealed and solidified into the shape of a giant egg. This broke into two halves, which became the heaven and the earth. Isn’t this time plus random chance that just generates matter and everything else? So that was the starting point with Orpheus.
Homer came along. He saw that the earth was flooded by Oceanus (the god who personified the ocean), and a vast sea surrounded the earth. So once again, everything seems to come out of water.
We can draw certain conclusions from this. First, all pagan myths begin with the existence of some sort of matter, or the gods themselves are often the personifications of matter. Just like in modern forms of evolutionary theory, it starts with the eternal existence of matter. Everything comes out of that. That’s why we talk about this chain of being. Everything basically participates in what that stuff is—even the gods. They are not separate from it; they are just part of the system.
Secondly, the mechanics of creation involve some sort of procreation. In some cases, the two gods have sex, and the result is that one gets pregnant and gives birth to the earth, or different things like that. There is always some sort of procreative activity that leads to something coming along. So there is no such thing as creation out of nothing.
All of these ancient cosmologies tell stories where already existing material is transformed into something else. One part of the universe causes or self-generates another part of the universe.
This reveals a fundamental continuity between all existing things, including all living things, whether one is discussing a god or a rock. The only difference is the amount of being that each one of these things has. They are all part of the same system.
That has tremendous implications for all kinds of things, but if you want to consider something, think about environmentalist thinking and the pantheism that is part of it. This ultimately leads to man being one with the universe. We must learn to be one with the universe.
Satan makes the same kind of claim when he suggests that Eve can be like God. “God doesn’t want you to eat from that tree because you will be like Him. But see, isn’t that fruit good? You can be just like God.” So she can be one with God and elevate herself up the chain of being.
The bottom line is, we must be clear whenever we are talking to other people that we maintain this clear distinction between the creator and the creation, because the God that we are talking about isn’t a god like any other god. He is totally distinct.
The God of the Bible is a personal, infinite God who exists as a triune person. He is eternal. All of His attributes He possesses in an unmeasured or infinite manner, yet He is personal. He can carry on a personal relationship with an individual. He exists in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Everything is created by Him. God is completely and totally distinct from the finite universe where we find angels, man, animals, vegetation, matter, energy, etc.
In the pagan view, there is an infinite, impersonal universe. On the Christian side, ultimate reality is personal and infinite. As people, we therefore have value. In an impersonal universe, there is no basis for personhood or individuality. So, there is an infinite impersonal universe that simply exists out there. And then we have the “circle of being.” Inside that is God, angels, man, animals, nature, rocks, whatever. This leads to a concept known as monism, where everything is ultimately one in being. The Buddhist yin-yang symbol indicates this. In postmodernism, these are merely different constructs, yet they are part of the same being. Everything is one; there is no separate entity called God who is over against creation.
So, which side of the dividing line are we as Christians? We are on the side that has a distinct, unique God. And so we can’t let people try to force Him into that circle of being.
As we have progressed through this, we have transitioned from mythological explanations to philosophical explanations of origins that developed within Greek culture.
End of July 27, 2025
End of July 27, 2025
Sunday, August 3, 2025
Sunday, August 3, 2025
Athens: GOD, Unknown gods, Stoics, Epicureans, Evolution, and the Chain of Being. Acts 17:16-31
Athens: GOD, Unknown gods, Stoics, Epicureans, Evolution, and the Chain of Being. Acts 17:16-31
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 17 where Paul has come to Athens and lectured on the Ariopagus.
Here is our location
Here is a little bit tighter and closer view
We have been getting background to understand the concept of the Pagan view of Chain of Being.
The Chain of Being is a hierarchical order of all entities, from the lowest forms of matter to the highest spiritual beings, culminating in God as the most perfect being.
We have described this as a system of Monism. All is part of the same being from dirt to water to man to Angels to God - thus Monism, all is part of the same being.
This is in stark contrast to the Judeo System of Creation Ex Nihilo, where God is separate from creation. He created from nothing.
Let’s continue our background development.
Henry Fairfield Osborn, a former director of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote a book called From the Greeks to Darwin. He is an evolutionist. He said:
“When I began the search for anticipation of the evolutionary theory I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century BC.
There is nothing new under the sun. All Darwin did was take some ideas that had always been there, reshape and reform them a little bit, and came up with some new definitions; but it is the same ideas that flow out of the ancient pantheistic monism.
Louis Trenchard More in his book, The Dogma of Evolution, dealing also with pro-evolutionary books says:
Evolutionists must find a cornerstone in Greek philosophy for their doctrine. They should give this honor to Democritus, whose doctrine of mechanical and Atomistic monism, in which all phenomena are reduced to material particles moving according to natural law, is, in the real sense of the word, modern science.
Get that? He is saying that, in the idea of monism, everything is reduced to DNA, to molecules, to physical laws. There is no such thing as a soul or a spirit. Modern psychology has rejected the whole idea that there is a soul or spirit. Everything is material; everything is just the result of your DNA and the way it is coded into your system. So you are not responsible for anything!
Democritus’s atomism was a precursor to modern scientific materialism.
Democritus proposed that everything in the universe consists of indivisible atoms moving through the void, governed by necessity rather than divine will—a radical departure from the God-consciousness view and pagan mythological explanations of their deities. His mechanistic monism laid the groundwork for later Enlightenment thinkers and scientific rationalists who sought naturalistic explanations for phenomena.
Our worldview today, which stems from the concept of the chain of being, is rooted in the idea that everything is essentially composed of chemicals. This stems from a group of philosophers known as the pre-Socratics.
Socrates
taught Plato,
who in turn taught Aristotle.
The Pre-Socratics are before Socrates. This is really early; they are just playing guessing games, trying to figure out the ultimate nature of reality. They held the view that monism is the theory that all reality is of one kind—it is neutral monism, material monism, or pantheistic monism, but it is all of one type. Remember, monism is the idea that everything is one; we all want to be one with nature, and we all want to be one with everybody else. One with nature is always horror, and always will be, because there is no real ethical foundation. Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are one and the same.
On monistic pantheism, the ultimate reality or the basic stuff of the universe is identified as God—air, fire, water; these are the gods, and so you have just the personification of those particular gods.
"In monistic pantheism, the core idea is that the universe and everything in it—such as air, fire, and water—is divine and collectively forms what we call God. When people describe these elements as individual gods, they are using personification, giving them human-like traits to emphasize their sacred role within the one, unified divine reality that is the universe."
**Monistic Pantheism**: This belief says that God and the universe are the same thing. There’s no separation—everything is part of one divine reality.
**Fundamental Components**: The basic building blocks of the universe (like air, fire, and water) are seen as divine because they are part of this God-universe.
**Personification**: Sometimes, cultures give these elements names and personalities (e.g., calling fire a "god"), but in monistic pantheism, this is just a symbolic way to show their importance. They aren’t truly separate gods; they’re aspects of the single God that is everything.
Now we have a series of philosophers who come along and give us theories of beginnings.
We have Thales, who came along and said that primordial matter was water, and water is the foundation for everything that exists.
Then we have Anaximander, who lived a little later than Thales. He said no, it’s not water; primordial matter is hot and cold, wet and dry. Some have said that his book on nature is the first primitive presentation of a written theory of evolution.
Then there is Anaximenes, a little later. He said the ultimate reality is just air. Air is the basic stuff of life; it is equated to the soul. When sent out, it becomes fire; when it is condensed, it becomes wind and cloud, and when it is more condensed, it becomes water. When it is condensed further, it becomes the Earth, which then becomes stone. Everything comes from this primordial air, and that explains everything in existence.
Next is Heraclitus, who lived at about the same time. He said the universe is continually changing. But it is a change in oneness, so that even though there is change, it is all within the same oneness or unity.
Parmenides came along and said no, they are just one.
Ultimately, they are all discussing the same thing. You start off with this one primordial matter that explains everything else in existence. This process continues through a chain of different philosophers until we reach Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Plato originated the idea of rationalism. He believes that these ideas are the ultimate reality. He called them forms or absolutes.
They might be called the absolute good or the summum bonum, but that is God, and it is up in a different realm. But the realm we see is the realm of matter, which is individual things—the ideas or being itself—and everything comes out of that.
Once again, in thier view, God is not something totally distinct. With Plato, out of its perfect fullness, being necessarily creates all possible things with all possible transitions. So being is the source of everything from within itself; it is not set apart from the things that are there.
Then we have Aristotle. He was the first to articulate this entire chain of being, encompassing God, angels, mankind, animals, and vegetation. He said:
The universe resembles a large and well-regulated family in which all the officers and servants, and even the domestic animals, are subservient to each other in proper subordination. Each enjoys the privileges and prerequisites peculiar to its place, and at the same time contributes by that just subordination to the magnificence and happiness of the whole.
In other words, everything is just this one chain.
This leads us to Epicurus in our history.
And who are we dealing with in Acts 17?
The Epicureans and the Stoics.
Epicurus was originally a follower of Aristotle, and he denied any purpose in nature, arguing that everything is just a product of chance. He emphasizes that there are just these fundamental components called atoms, and they have a certain randomness to them.
So, there is an infinite number of worlds, there is no God—the Epicureans Paul is talking to are basically what we would call today “atheists,” there is no God in their system—the universe is eternal, and everything on the earth evolved directly from the matter on earth itself. Paul is witnessing to people who are not any different from the people that you and I are witnessing to. They are just a bunch of materialist evolutionists.
One of the famous Roman Epicureans was Lucretius, who wrote a six-volume work on this. He essentially states that Nature is free and uncontrolled by proud masters, and that it runs the universe independently without the aid of gods. (Can you say the words “random chance”? Basically, that is what evolution is: time plus chance equals order and sophistication.)
To be clear, Epicureans did believe in gods—but gods who were completely indifferent to human affairs.
They denied divine providence, miracles, and judgment.
Their gods were distant, blissful beings dwelling in the intermundia (spaces between worlds), uninvolved with creation or morality.
This is a monistic form that corresponds to Deism.
The Roman Philosopher Lucretius expresses the idea that nothing can be created out of nothing—a rejection of ex nihilo creation—in Book I of De Rerum Natura.
Latin Original (Book I, lines 150–157)
Nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.
Nil posse creari de nihilo.
“Nothing is ever gotten out of nothing by divine power.”
“Nothing can be produced from nothing.
This reflects Lucretius’s Epicurean materialism, where all things arise from pre-existing matter—atoms in motion—not from divine fiat.
He also writes:
He also writes, Book I, line 248:
Haud igitur redit ad nihilum res ulla.
“A thing therefore never returns to nothing.”
The Stoics were also pantheistic monists, emphasizing a simple life and submission to one's circumstances.
Epicureans are not pursuing pleasure for pleasure’s sake. The best way to understand Epicureans is that they are seeking happiness, but happiness isn’t ephemeral; it isn’t a momentary stimulation of our nerves so that we feel good; it is a long-term happiness. Therefore, they adopt a particular ethical system because only through responsibility, hard work, and similar principles can one truly be happy.
The Stoics were also pantheistic monists, emphasizing a simple life and submission to one's circumstances.
In Stoicism, they emphasize that things are going to happen to you, and you must learn to accept and live consistently with your circumstances; only then can you achieve happiness.
However, what they all share is the same concept of being. Which means creation exists in a continuum with God in which they are all part of the same Chain of Being.
Interestingly, Paul sees right to the heart of the matter as he later writes to the Romans - -It is all about origins, and that the true God of creation is separate from His creation.
When Paul comes along, he starts to talk about resurrection and God as the creator; they can’t fathom that, because they have been so immersed in their truth suppression that they redefine it.
That doesn’t mean that nobody listens to him because there are certainly those who do respond to Paul and the gospel. They are going to form a nucleus in Athens. But most of them do not.
Paul says:
Acts 17:24
Acts 17:24
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
See how much that disagrees with everything they think? He doesn’t back off.
“ … since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.”
What he is going to do is disagree with their religions when he talks about resurrection, because God is the creator, because Jesus is God, and because resurrection and victory over death is possible. In Greek thought that was not possible. Resurrection was a foolish, impossible notion. So Paul emphasizes at the start who God is. This has to be a vital aspect whenever we witness to people that we make sure they understand who God is, and that we are not talking about some generic concept called G-o-d; we are talking about the specific God who is the creator of the heavens and the earth and is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Athens: The Challenge of the Gospel. Acts 17:23-34
Athens: The Challenge of the Gospel. Acts 17:23-34
Acts 17:23
Acts 17:23
23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
The “unknown god” is just another one of their gods that participates in the being of the universe. He is not a distinct god, so Paul is not compromising the gospel by saying, “Your god and my God are really the same.” They are not the same God. What he is doing is pointing out the fact that they have an idol to an unknown god, which shows that they have God-consciousness. They are aware that there is a God out there, but they are suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. What Paul wants to do is tweak it. He wants to say something that is either going to create a reaction or prompt a response.
In biblical thought, God is totally separate; there is no derivative being. He creates everything. He creates all existence out of nothing, in what we call ex nihilo creation. Paul recognizes that the god that they envision is just another one of their gods, not a distinctly different god, not a creator God who created ex nihilo.
Paul doesn’t ever validate their concept of deity by equating the pagan idea of God with the biblical idea of God. He is not going to assume that when they say, “I want God,” that what they mean by that is what he means when he is talking about God. He spends a lot of time clarifying who God is and pointing out that this idol does not represent the true God but rather serves as evidence that they acknowledge the existence of a God. He is going to teach the knowledge of God. We derive this understanding from Romans 1:18.
Romans 1:18
Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Those who are hostile toward God are considered suppressors of the truth. Everyone is a truth suppressor until they understand the gospel and come to believe. Until a person believes in the gospel, there is no indication that he is going to change. It is easy to say of someone that they are so hard, they will never believe the gospel. That's what would have been told about Paul five minutes before he became a believer. So, we can’t prejudge, and we don’t know how long it will take. We just have to be faithful in expressing the gospel.
The wrath of God is revealed against truth suppressors because what may be known about God is manifest (revealed) in them. So that means no matter who I am talking to, they know in their heart of hearts that God exists. Paul just wants to share some thoughts to get that knowledge of God to start vibrating a little bit, and then receive either a positive response or an adverse reaction. We see both happen here on Mars Hill.
Romans 1:20
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Standing before the great white throne judgment, there is no excuse. Why?
Romans 1:21
Romans 1:21
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
The more their heart is darkened, the harder their hearts become. Only the Holy Spirit can penetrate that; we just have to do our best to try to generate some activity.
Paul also utilizes certain features of commonly held beliefs as a means of enhancing their God-consciousness. He is going to say some things that are commonly believed in terms of the religious beliefs of the masses. He is not using it because he claims it is true; he is using it because the reason it exists in the culture is that there is a truth that has been suppressed, but there is still a knowledge of God that bubbles up everywhere. These different sayings are evidence that some truth is being suppressed, and so Paul is simply using them as a way to surface the God-consciousness that is already there. The common ground that Paul appeals to isn’t reason or experience but the suppressed truth of the knowledge of God.
Typically, in the methodology of defending the faith, what we appeal to is one of three things. Most people don’t appeal to Scripture as the ultimate authority, because the unbeliever doesn’t believe in the authority of Scripture. They say, “I am going to appeal to something he thinks has authority; I am going to appeal to reason.” However, his reasoning is flawed; it is autonomous. Therefore, it is ultimately irrational. So, what they are doing is slipping over into the human viewpoint side of the game, thinking, “I can win them by using their assumptions.” No, they can’t. If you have a bad starting point, you will likely end up with a bad outcome. Sometimes that works, but only because people aren’t really bright and don't think things through logically. It is not that the gospel isn’t rational, but rather that it does not start from the rational starting point that human reason alone can determine truth.
Or we go to experience, to validate the historical argument for Scripture. Now there is a historical argument, evidence for the truth of Scripture, but that is not our foundation for proving truth. It is different. Our starting point is the fact that the unbeliever we are talking to already knows that God exists. We don’t really need to prove it to him. And if we tried to prove it to him on his terms, we’d have a problem. How much empirical evidence can I marshal to convince him that God exists? He is going to say, “It doesn’t matter how much evidence you marshal because it won’t convince me, because I already know God exists. And I have been suppressing it for thirty years. It is not about evidence; it is about my hostility to God.” The issue isn’t a lack of data; the issue is rejection of data. It is an ethical, sinful problem; it is not an intellectual problem. He is not an unbeliever because he is not smart enough; he is an unbeliever because he is in rebellion against God. He doesn’t want the truth. So, when we witness to unbelievers, we don’t sacrifice the true common ground because we think it will be easier.
Several factors should determine success in evangelism. This is important. How many years did Noah evangelize his generation? 120 years. How many people responded and believed the gospel? None. Was he successful? Absolutely. We live in a world that says some kind of quantifying element measures success. How many people did you lead to the Lord? You haven’t been very successful, have you? No, I have been eminently successful. I have never compromised the view of God as the ex nihilo creator of the world. I have never stepped over into rationalism or empiricism to prove the Bible is true. I have never sought some authority higher than God (reason or experience) to prove that God exists. I have never compromised the gospel and have always given it as clearly as I could. I have been very successful. See, all we can control are our own decisions and our actions. We can’t control other people’s decisions and actions. So, success isn’t measured in terms of conversions; it is measured in terms of our attitude toward the unbeliever, in terms of our humility. Success in evangelism is measured by how well we present the gospel, not by the frequency of positive responses.
So Paul goes on in his opening to focus, once he has established this common ground, being the knowledge of God (within all of us), to describe who this God is. He doesn’t compromise that.
Acts 17:24
Acts 17:24
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
So, his starting point with these intellectual philosophers is not passages from the Old Testament that talk about the Messiah. His starting point goes back to creation, because they must understand God correctly. Then they have to understand the problem of sin. Then they can begin discussing the need for salvation. We don’t just jump into talking about Jesus. It is interesting that before God sent Jesus, He took over 2000 years to prepare the human race for the gospel, for the coming of the savior, so they would understand what would be going on, at least through the revelation given to the Jews first.
He makes the point that God is the one who created the world, encompassing everything in the cosmos, which could conceivably include more than just the world. He makes that clear when he says, “Lord of heaven and earth.” Nothing is the product of chance; nothing is the result of randomness. God showed intelligence, forethought, and planning and made everything in the world.
Paul says of God that He is the Lord—kurios. The word "kurios" can mean owner, master, or sovereign ruler. That is the idea here. Paul is referring to God as the sovereign ruler over His creation, as the Creator. As a result, He is the Lord, the ruler of heaven and earth. He has authority over what He has made. Then his point is that He doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands.
If God created the heavens and the earth, He can’t be part of that universe; He must be separate from it. That flies right in the face of their chain of being frame of reference. So, God isn’t part of the process, which means God can break through the natural physical laws and raise someone from the dead.
Paul is getting this from Old Testament truth, not from their view of God. He says God doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands. In other words, He is not submissive to human things; He is not under man’s control. This idea that God is not under the control of man or does not dwell in things made by man comes out of the Old Testament, specifically, it comes out of a statement made by Solomon as he prepares to build the temple.
1 Kings 8:27
1 Kings 8:27
27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!
Even in the Old Testament, the Jews realized that the temple, as the house of God, was just a dwelling place for a finite representation of God, but that God, in His omnipresence, was greater than the universe, filled the universe and more, and His presence could not be contained in a human building.
There is a scene about 400 years later in the time of Isaiah.
Isaiah 66:1-2
Isaiah 66:1-2
1 Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? 2 For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,” Says the Lord. “But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word.
This is picked up by Stephen in his sermon just before the Pharisees stoned him.
Acts 7:47-50
Acts 7:47-50
47 But Solomon built Him a house. 48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 49 ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? 50 Has My hand not made all these things?’
Stephen combined the statement made by Solomon with the statement of Isaiah.
Paul’s emphasis throughout this is on God as the ex nihilo creator, the sustainer, and the one who is absolutely independent of His creation, who does not need human beings for anything. That idea also appeared in various Greek notions of deity as independent, but it was still incorporated within the chain of being. Even though they had certain notions of an independent god, he is not truly independent because he is part of this chain of being. What is also in the background here is that because God is the ruler of the heavens and the earth, He is the one who oversees the distribution of blessings to both the good and the evil. This is what is known as common grace, whereby God brings rain upon both the good and the evil, bestowing a certain amount of blessing on those who are His and those who have rejected Him. This is seen in Luke 6:35
Luke 6:35
Luke 6:35
35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.
When we give and somebody slaps us in the face, when he isn’t grateful when we think they should be, too often we say we aren’t going to do anything for that person anymore. That is not grace orientation. Grace orientation is that we do it because it is the right thing to do. After all, that person is a human being in God’s image and we need to do what we can to take care of them. For even God is kind to the ungrateful and the evil person.
Paul goes on to point out that God’s creation of the human race ties all human beings together.
Acts 17:26
Acts 17:26
26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
So all human beings are related. We are all made from one blood: first Adam, then the descendants of Adam, until the flood. Then the human race narrows again to the descendants of one man and his wife. They had three sons, and all of the descendants of mankind go back to the descendants of those three men—Ham, Shem, and Japhet.
This passage is one of the critical passages in the New Testament for understanding the divine institution of nations. It is not just an Old Testament concept. It is a New Testament reality because these divine institutions are designed for all human beings, whether they are believers or not. This is important to understand.
What is the definition of a divine institution? Christians have used this term as far back as the time of the Puritans. It isn’t a term coined in recent history. It has been used to refer to absolute social structures (and we could say moral and ethical structures) that were established by God and embedded within the social makeup of human beings. It is part of bringing the image of God to life. Thus, these are for the entire human race—believers and unbelievers alike. They are unbreakable realities designed to preserve, protect, and promote the prosperity of the human race. No culture that has knowingly, conscientiously violated these principles has ever survived. And when many cultures that do advance start failing the prosperity test, one of the things that happens is that they begin to violate these divine institutions. They think they can remake these social absolutes. We see that today.
The first divine institution is individual responsibility. We are all accountable to God for our actions. In each divine institution, there is an authority structure. People are responsible for the decisions they make and how they live their lives. They will reap the consequences of their good decisions and experience the heartache of their bad decisions. When we interfere with that by trying to create, for example, a socialist utopia, we end up destroying many other things. There are numerous unintended consequences. Welfare can undermine individual initiative and responsibility. It is only on the basis of recognition of personal responsibility that we can be motivated to achieve great things. However, when people are given everything as a sort of handout, there is no motivation to develop, pursue, build, and achieve success.
The second divine institution is marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is wrong, it is self-destructive, and it will destroy society. No society has ever succeeded that allows and legalizes homosexual relationships and homosexual marriage. It may have been tacitly accepted but never formally legalized. The problem is, once you start legalizing one set of sins, where are you going to stop? Before long, if you are going to be consistent, you are going to have to legalize everything. Then that leads to pure anarchy and the destruction of a culture.
Marriage allows for the perpetuation of God’s creation principles from one generation to the next. And that takes place within the third divine institution, which is the family—where mother and father raise their children. No society has ever achieved any level of greatness or lasted very long that was built on matriarchy. The cultures that have survived, conquered, and been prosperous have always been based on a marriage where the male was the leader.
The Soviet Union conducted extensive experimentation with role shifting between men and women, and it almost always led to collapse. God made men to be men and women to be women. There are many areas where women can excel over men, and men may excel in certain areas, but that is not necessarily in the places where God designed them to function. There are differences—physical and soul differences—and God has drawn lines as to what men should do and what women should do, and He doesn’t want those violated.
One of the areas that is constantly under attack today is the area of keeping women from teaching men. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 makes it very clear that women are not to teach males in the realm of spiritual truth, neither are they to have authority over men. These are not the same thing.
Later, God instituted two additional institutions. One is government—judicial government. It is established by the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9, which occurs approximately 250 years before the Tower of Babel. You can have a government without nations. There were no nations between Noah and the tower of Babel. What generates national or tribal divisions is the scattering of the languages. Now everybody has to break out into different groups because they can’t understand each other. That is the fifth division—nations.
The first three divine institutions all occurred before sin. They are designed to promote productivity and to advance civilization. When they are violated, productivity is reversed and civilization turns barbaric and perverse. They are designed to promote growth, whereas divine institutions four and five are instituted after the fall and designed to restrain evil.
According to Acts 17:26, God has made every nation. Part of God’s distinction is to divide up the nations. Internationalism is therefore wrong, both based on the tower of Babel in the Old Testament and this verse. The UN is a blasphemous act of man shaking his fist in the face of God, as was its predecessor, the League of Nations. The fact that the UN has a messianic complex is indicated by the fact that it has carved out of the stone at the entryway the passage in Isaiah chapter two: “And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.” That is a description of what will take place in the messianic kingdom; it is not something that man can execute before the messianic kingdom. The fact that the UN has the text from Isaiah chapter two in its entryway is a statement that we are going to do what the Messiah is going to do: “We are the Messiah.” So the promotion and acceptance of the UN is a blasphemous act against God.
Acts 17:26
Acts 17:26
26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
When they will rise and when they will fall. All nations, including the United States of America, will have a period of ascension and a period of decline over the course of their history. I’m afraid that we are living in this nation’s period of decline. There is no guarantee that any nation is going to last forever, and after the Rapture occurs, every nation is going to support the Antichrist. All the Christians will be gone, their influence will have left, and so they will follow evil like everyone else. “… and the boundaries of their habitation.” There are boundaries established by God for nations. And when we come along and want to have open borders as a result of our internationalism, it will lead to absolute national calamity and national collapse. It is economic self-destruction. The fact that we can’t protect and secure our borders is just a sign of the most incredible hubris of a nation in history. God has clearly established national boundaries, and they need to be maintained if we are to follow any kind of biblical thought—living within the Creator’s creation and according to His rules. When we suppress that in unrighteousness, then we will never see security and prosperity again.
Acts 17:27
Acts 17:27
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
The reason that God has established these borders is that they should seek the Lord. God wants people to seek Him. He is not hiding. He has made knowledge of Himself within them; He is not hiding it. Who is doing the suppressing in Romans 1:18, 19? It is human beings. God has done all of these things within creation and supervises and sustains creation so that people will seek the Lord.
The word for “grope” is interesting. It is the Greek word [ψηλαφάω--PSELAPHAO]. It is used only four times in the New Testament. It is typically translated to touch or to handle something. However, it is used here in Acts in a metaphorical sense to refer to a blind man groping in the dark, trying to find his way. And so it pictures a spiritually blind person trying to find God. Yet the Scriptures say God is right there and the knowledge of Him is evident within.
Paul describes these Greeks as pagans seeking God in their imperfect way. They all have God-consciousness, but they are suppressing that truth in darkness, so they can’t quite get a hold of God. The idea that God is near us or within us is also present in some Greek philosophers and Roman philosophers. But Paul isn’t quoting this from a particular Greek or Roman philosopher. This was a common idea in the ancient world, so he is using it as evidence of their God-consciousness, which they would recognize and accept as accurate. And this is just evidence that they are aware that God exists as something beyond what they understand with their idols.
This concept has its roots in the Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 4:7
Deuteronomy 4:7
7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him?
Psalm 14:1-2
Psalm 14:1-2
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
God is looking for people who seek Him.
Psalm 145:18
Psalm 145:18
18 The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth.
If you seek God He will reveal Himself to you.
Jeremiah 23:23-24
Jeremiah 23:23-24
23 “Am I a God near at hand,” says the Lord, “And not a God afar off? 24 Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the Lord; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord.
So the picture is that God is one who is seeking, and willing to reveal Himself to human beings, but they are the ones who are suppressing that truth in unrighteousness, and they are responsible for their negative decisions.
Acts 17:28
Acts 17:28
28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Commentators have debated this issue for centuries. Some say that this is a quote from Epimenides around 600 BC. But this was a common idea in the ancient world, that God was near and around. And again, what Paul was doing was quoting a popular idea to tweak their God-consciousness, and that this is just evidence that unbelievers have some sort of awareness of God’s existence. He is saying we are His offspring, but only in the sense that God created us. We are only children of God if we accept Christ as our savior.
John 1:12
John 1:12
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Acts 17:29
Acts 17:29
29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.
Since we are part of God’s offspring, it dishonors not only God but also ourselves if we make an idol of God to worship Him.
Then he gives his challenge.
Acts 17:30
Acts 17:30
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
In the Old Testament, God recognized that there was idolatry, but because of His grace and plan, He allowed it to continue. But now there is fuller revelation, Jesus has come and paid the penalty for sin, and so it won’t seem as if Gentiles are getting away with it anymore.
This is the same kind of thing Paul said when he was speaking in Lystra.
Acts 14:15-17
Acts 14:15-17
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
Common grace. God always had a witness.
End of August 3, 2025
End of August 3, 2025
Sunday, August 10, 2025
Sunday, August 10, 2025
Athens: The Challenge of the Gospel. Acts 17:23-34
Athens: The Challenge of the Gospel. Acts 17:23-34
REVIEW
REVIEW
We are continuing in our Pentecost: The New Church study through Acts and are in Acts 17 where Paul has come to Athens and lectured on the Ariopagus.
Here is our location
Paul has been addressing those who are the who are the intellectual leaders of this intellectual and academic center of the world at that time.
To understand where he was coming from, and why he invoked the Creator distinction from Creation, we reviewed the history of the Chain of Being model.
The Chain of Being is a hierarchical order of all entities, from the lowest forms of matter to the highest spiritual beings, culminating in God as the most perfect being.
We have described this as a system of Monism. All is part of the same being from dirt to water to man to Angels to God - thus Monism, all is part of the same being.
This is in stark contrast to the Judeo System of Creation Ex Nihilo, where God is separate from creation. He created from nothing.
The Chain of Being reflects a continuity of being—a metaphysical assumption that all entities exist on a single spectrum of being, from rocks to angels to God.
This model, originates in pagan and philosophical systems, particularly Greek thought, and undermines biblical categories.
In contrast, the Bible teaches a categorical distinction between the Creator (uncreated, self-existent) and the creature (created, dependent).
Chain of Being is a foundational error that leads to:
Pantheism or panentheism
Evolutionary thinking
Mystical or sacramental views of nature
Confusion in theology, especially regarding God's transcendence
We emphasize:
The need to reject continuity-of-being metaphysics and instead uphold the biblical ontology of Creator vs. creature.
That this distinction is essential for understanding revelation, salvation, and history.
That many theological errors—especially in liberal theology and mysticism—stem from smuggling in Chain of Being assumptions.
Next we connected the dots to explain the Epicureans and the Stoics.
Epicurus was originally a follower of Aristotle, and he denied any purpose in nature, arguing that everything is just a product of chance. He emphasizes that there are just these fundamental components called atoms, and they have a certain randomness to them.
So, there is an infinite number of worlds, there is no God—the Epicureans Paul is talking to are basically what we would call today “atheists,” there is no God in their system—the universe is eternal, and everything on the earth evolved directly from the matter on earth itself. Paul is witnessing to people who are not different from the people you and I witness to. They are materialist evolutionists.
One of the famous Roman Epicureans was Lucretius, who wrote a six-volume work on this. He states that Nature is free and uncontrolled by proud masters, and that it runs the universe independently without the aid of gods. This means random chance. Essentially, that is what evolution is: time plus chance equals order and sophistication.
To be clear, Epicureans did believe in gods—but gods who were completely indifferent to human affairs.
They denied divine providence, miracles, and judgment.
Their gods were distant, blissful beings dwelling in the intermundia (spaces between worlds), uninvolved with creation or morality.
This is a monistic form that corresponds to Deism.
Then we have stoicism
Stoicism: Pantheistic Monism and Virtue Through Acceptance
Metaphysics: Stoics were pantheistic monists—they believed that the universe is a rational, divine whole (logos), and that everything is interconnected.
God and Nature: God is not separate from creation but is immanent within it. The divine logos permeates all things.
Ethics: Happiness (eudaimonia) is achieved by living in accordance with nature, which means cultivating virtue—wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.
Circumstances: External events are beyond our control. The Stoic must accept fate (amor fati) and focus only on what is within their power—namely, their judgments and actions.
Goal: Inner peace and resilience through rational self-mastery and moral integrity, not pleasure.
Summary: Stoicism vs. Epicureanism
Stoicism teaches that happiness comes from moral resilience and rational acceptance of fate.
Epicureanism teaches that happiness comes from simple pleasures and freedom from disturbance.
Both reject hedonistic excess, but Stoicism elevates virtue, while Epicureanism elevates tranquility.
So, Let’s pick back up in Acts 17
Acts 17:22-28
Acts 17:22-28
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Acts 17:28
Acts 17:28
28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Commentators have debated this issue for centuries. Some say that this is a quote from Epimenides around 600 BC. In the sixth century b.c. it was said that a poet from Crete named Epimenides turned aside a horrible plague from the people of Athens by appealing to a god of whom the people had never heard. An altar was built to honor this god, whom the Athenians now called the unknown god.
Paul obviously knew of Epimenides. We know tyhis for sure because he quoted the poet in Titus 1:12.
Titus 1:12
Titus 1:12
12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
But it was a common idea in the ancient world, that God was near and around.
And again, what Paul was doing was quoting a popular idea to tweak their God-consciousness, and that this is just evidence that unbelievers have some sort of awareness of God’s existence.
He is saying we are His offspring, but only in the sense that God created us.
We are only Children-of-God if we accept Christ as our savior.
Acts 17:29
Acts 17:29
29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.
Since we are part of God’s offspring, it dishonors not only God but also ourselves if we make an idol of God to worship Him.
Then he gives his challenge.
Acts 17:30
Acts 17:30
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
In the Old Testament, God recognized that there was idolatry, but because of His grace and plan, He allowed it to continue. But now there is fuller revelation, Jesus has come and paid the penalty for sin, and so it isn’t as if Gentiles are getting away with it anymore. Our loving Creator has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to demonstrate His love for us. It is our responsibility to respond to His Son and to follow Him.
This is the same kind of thing Paul said when he was speaking in Lystra.
Acts 14:15-17
Acts 14:15-17
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
Common grace. God always had a witness.
Acts 17:31
Acts 17:31
31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
Notice how he has circled right around and has hit the real sticky point. In their arrogance, they don’t want to believe that there is a God outside of the natural laws that they have identified—outside of the chain of being—who can raise someone from the dead. They reject that completely. Not only is Paul challenging them and saying not only will there be a resurrection, but there will be an appointed time when God is going to judge them.
That judgment has been given to the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:26-27).
John 5:26-27
John 5:26-27
26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
There are three responses. Some mock him and reject his words. Then there is a second group that says they will hear him again on this matter.
Acts 17:32-33
Acts 17:32-33
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” 33 So Paul departed from among them.
The third reaction.
Acts 17:34
Acts 17:34
34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Throughout Acts, we see Luke highlighting women who were saved. This would be revolutionary in a Jewish context. In a synagogue at that time, the women were on one side and the men on the other, and the women were basically ignored. Paul never treats women less than men. He treats them differently because they have a different role, but it is not a less significant role, nor is it less important.
Paul gets a response and a small group is established there, then he is going to leave.
From the Intellect to the Sensual. Acts 18:1-5
From the Intellect to the Sensual. Acts 18:1-5
In our next section, Paul travels to Corinth.
Here is Corinth
Corinth was the seat of lust, lasciviousness, and sensuality in the ancient world. It was the good-time city of the Roman Empire, and there wasn’t anything that didn’t happen there. Paul has just left Athens and is somewhat down. He has had a tough year, from being beaten and flagellated physically at Philippi by the Romans, facing opposition in Thessalonica and Berea, and then going to Athens, where he has minimal impact. In fact, Paul was almost dragged into Corinth with his tail tucked between his legs. And he says that in his first epistle to the Corinthians (2:1).
1 Corinthians 2:1-2
1 Corinthians 2:1-2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
He had a completely different style of teaching, one that did not fit the norms and standards of oratory and rhetoric at the time. He wasn’t trying to appeal to them in the ways that oratory appeals to people. He is trying to appeal to them in terms of laying out a strong, rational biblical case for Jesus being the Messiah.
1 Corinthians 2:3
1 Corinthians 2:3
3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling.
The term for weakness there is the Greek word ἀσθένεια—ASTHENEIA] which shows up numerous times in Scripture. In about half of its uses, it refers to physical weakness or illness, primarily in the Gospels. But even in the Gospels, about a third of the uses have to do with a spiritual weakness or just a mental attitude tiredness. In the epistles, it reverses its emphasis. There are a few cases where ASTHENEIA refers to physical illness or sickness, but in most cases it refers to spiritual weariness, a mental attitude weariness.
Paul has had a tough time, and it is essential to understand that because of two passages in Acts chapter 18, one of which he is compelled by the Holy Spirit to go to the synagogues and to teach, and in the other one, Jesus appears to him personally in a revelation and encourages him. In both cases, these are unique manifestations of God’s presence in the life of an apostle. We must understand that Paul and the other apostles were unlike any other believers in history. They were a unique class of Christians according to Ephesians 2:20. The apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church. When you build a house, you know that you never lay the foundation but once. Once it is laid, everything else is constructed upon that. So in the early church, there was the apostolic ministry, which laid the doctrinal foundation for the church, and the miracles validated it. They performed signs and wonders that in 2 Corinthians 12 are identified as the signs of an apostle. That is how an apostle was identified. Not every Christian performed miracles. And the apostles didn’t perform them very frequently, but they did so because it validated their authority as apostles. That is what sets them apart as a leader and founder of Christian thinking and doctrine.
Acts 18:1
Acts 18:1
1 After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth.
Corinth is approximately 50 miles west of Athens, about a two-day walk or a day’s sail. The city was founded in the distant past, probably before 750 BC. It was one of the wealthiest cities because it was located between two ports. The city was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC due to a revolt against Rome at the time. All the citizens of the city were killed or enslaved, all of its treasures were taken to Rome, and according to Roman law, the city was not allowed to rebuild for 100 years. In 44 BC, it was rebuilt by Julius Caesar and was officially renamed Laus Julia Corinthus. It became a Roman colony settled by retired Roman military personnel.
It served as the administrative center for the province from 27 BC onwards, making it a strategic location for the spread of Christianity. From Corinth, the Word could spread from converts on ships to all parts of the Roman Empire and beyond.
The Isthmian Games were held near here as well, once every two years, and it is believed that near the time the apostle Paul first came, the Games were in full swing. And so, it was an opportunity for him to be in the tent-making business to provide tents for the people who were coming to the Games.
It is estimated that the population of Corinth was 250,000 to 300,000. It was an extremely prosperous city because of all of the trade and opportunities for business, and it was also a town that was noted for it licentiousness. In the ancient world, to “Corinthianize” was a synonym for lewd, lascivious behavior; prostitutes were referred to simply as Corinthian girls. Aphrodite, the goddess of love, was the most popular of the deities in Corinth, and her temple was the center of worship, where over 1000 cultic prostitutes plied their trade.
Acts 18:2
Acts 18:2
2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Interestingly, Luke does not describe him as a disciple.
“born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them”
This edict from Claudius probably refers to the decree in AD 49. He expelled the Jews because of various riots and civil disobedience that occurred at the instigation of Chrestus. This is either a misspelling or perhaps a reference to Christ. Still, it could indicate that a certain amount of disturbance and physical violence had erupted within the Jewish community over whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. It is a tantalizing reference; we just don’t have enough information. Apparently, from 41-49, the Romans were having increasing problems with the Jewish community in Rome, and when these riots and disturbances broke out in 49, Claudius expelled all of the Jews.
The population of Jews at the time of the expulsion was about 50,000. So, this was a significant event in the life of the Jewish community in Rome. Aquila’s wife’s name is mentioned here as Priscilla. That is the diminutive form of Prisca, which is the form used in several other passages. Luke uses Priscilla, which suggests a greater familiarity and closer friendship with them. Paul mentions them several other times. In Romans 16:3-5 he concludes his epistle to Rome (by this time the Jews were allowed back in Rome): “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; also {greet} the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia.”
In 1 Corinthians 16:19
1 Corinthians 16:19
1 Corinthians 16:19
19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Apparently, they travelled with Paul. He spent a year and a half in Corinth and then, as we will see in the rest of the chapter, he left and went to Ephesus. He is on his way to Jerusalem and ends up spending two years in Ephesus, where Aquila and Priscilla are with him. They then leave with him to go to Rome.
2 Timothy 4:19
2 Timothy 4:19
19 Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.
At that point, Timothy is in Ephesus. So at this time, they are back. They apparently travelled and moved around quite a bit.
Paul worked hard as a tentmaker. Other passages allude to this.
1 Corinthians 4:12
1 Corinthians 4:12
12 And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure;
Later on in chapter seven, he talks about the fact that he did not take up a collection or live off the grace offerings from the Corinthians. He worked to support himself, even though he said that the apostles had every right to earn their living from teaching the Word.
Acts 18:3
Acts 18:3
3 So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers.
There is also considerable debate about this—whether the trade primarily involved dealing with leather goods, such as sowing leather and tanning, or whether it also involved other textiles and materials. One source (in the Mishna) indicates that tent making was a common trade suggested for rabbis because they were not to profit from the teaching of the Torah, and they were also not to be idle. So tent making was a commonly suggested trade for rabbis to be trained in.
Acts 18:4
Acts 18:4
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Now we get into what Paul did. He arrives a little bit tired, a little bit weary, spiritually weary. He had faced a lot of opposition and didn’t have a lot of impact in Athens. How many times do we get discouraged in our lives? Paul was no different. It doesn’t mean he is out of fellowship or that he was a failure; it just means he was a human being. We get tired and weary. God will encourage Paul as he ministers in Corinth.
“in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.”
His pattern was always to take the gospel to the Jew first. We have to understand this. Some people have been heard to say that Paul didn’t really know that he was in the church age. Really? Paul didn’t understand that. They have to be kidding. He understood that, but he also understood that he was in a transition period. This is one aspect that many scholars and people have overlooked. You can’t go to Acts and find prescriptive behavior. Many denominations do this. The entire Pentecostal-Charismatic movement has turned to Acts as if It tells them how to do church. Acts doesn’t tell us how to do church; Acts tells us how the church was born historically. What happened isn’t the same as what ought to happen. Just because things were done a certain way does not mean that that way is a prescribed way of doing it. We have to go to the epistles to understand what the prescriptions are, what the imperatives are, and what the mandates are. In Acts, we simply see what happened. It represented a unique time in history.
The temple was still in existence until AD 70. The church was born on Pentecost in 33 AD. There are roughly 37 years between the birth of the church and the collapse and destruction of the temple, during which a transition period is underway. The Jews were still under obligation to observe certain customs and rituals in relation to the temple because God hadn’t ended the temple worship yet. Not everything that occurred in the temple was related to salvation through sacrifices. Those were all fulfilled in Christ. The church has been born, but it is still in its infancy; it doesn’t yet have a complete canon of Scripture. It doesn’t even reveal all the unique aspects of the spiritual life of the church age through the apostles. That comes incrementally through progressive revelation, primarily through Paul’s epistles, beginning in approximately 48 or 49 with Galatians. However, it is mainly through the fifties, when he writes 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, and later the prison epistles in the early to mid-sixties, that the Lord makes clear what He is doing through this new body of Christ. If we consider the prison epistles—Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, and Ephesians—these are at the heart of our understanding of the Christian life in the church age. Paul wrote these between 60 and the time of his death (67 or 68), three years before the destruction of the temple.
The narrative history in Acts was in a transitional period when the message was still directed to Israel: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Peter offered the kingdom in Acts 2 and again in Acts 3. Paul is still following this pattern to the Jew first and then to the Gentile because God is still holding out the gospel to the Jew. It is not yet set in stone, although it most likely would be, but God is still extending grace before judgment throughout this period before it becomes definite that the temple will be destroyed. The option was still legitimately being offered, and so Paul is still giving the gospel to the Jews in a distinct way. Their rejection of it also provided further evidence of the necessity for the judgment of AD 70 that was coming.
So Paul goes into the synagogue and reasons every Sabbath. This implies more than one or two. Remember that he was only there for a short time, about three weeks, when he was in Thessalonica. Now it seems that a much longer period of time passed while he reasoned in the synagogue.
This is the Greek verb διαλέγομαι--DIALEGOMAI, from which we get our word dialogue, but he is not in a dialogue. He is reasoning from the Scriptures, and there would be questions and answers at the end, but the word dialegomai is not to be understood as a dialogue. It has more to do with arguing or presenting a case for his view. It is an imperfect case, which indicates continuous action in the past, as opposed to an aorist, which summarizes the action. The imperfect tense has several nuances, and this is probably an inceptive imperfect, which means that he began to do this.
So he began to reason in the synagogue, and he “persuaded”—πείθω--PEITHO, imperfect active indicative. This wouldn’t be an inceptive imperfect; it would be an iterative imperfect. Iterative refers not just to an ongoing action in the past, but let’s say that last month you exercised every day. You didn’t exercise continuously every day; you got up every morning and exercised. It refers to periodic activity that continues over time. That is the idea here. So, as he is reasoning in the synagogue, there are Jews here and there, and Gentiles as well, who are becoming persuaded. To persuade, here is the main idea of the verb peitho, which means to bring someone to an understanding and conviction of the truth. The result of that is that they believed. So, this is a summary of what Paul was doing at the beginning of his ministry in Corinth. He is building his case; he is explaining the gospel from the Old Testament—something we all should be able to do.
In verse five, there is a paragraph shift, a change of topic.
Acts 18:5
Acts 18:5
5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.
There is a textual problem here in this verse. In a KJV or NKJV, it reads very differently from the NASB, NIV, NET, ESV, or any other translation based on the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism.
In the NKJV it says,
“… the Spirit compelled Paul.”
“Was compelled by” indicates a translation of a passive verb. Paul, as the subject of the verb, is receiving the action of the verb: Paul is compelled by the Spirit.
In the NASB, we have a translation where it says, “Paul began devoting himself.” That is more of an active voice idea. Paul is the grammatical subject of the verb “devote,” he performs the action of devoting. “Himself” indicates a reflexive action, and this indicates a middle voice in the Greek, which has to do with reflexive action. There we read, “he devoted himself completely to the word.” In the Majority Text, it has the word pneuma there—he is “compelled by the Spirit.” In some North African manuscripts, as well as in some uncials and older manuscripts, the word “spirit” is present.
Older isn’t necessarily better when it comes to textual criticism because a more recent copy that is a perfect copy of an original text is a better copy, even though it may be 800 years more recent than a bad copy that is older. So age really isn’t a significant factor.
In the late 19th century, Westcott and Hort, Anglican scholars, developed a theory of how to properly organize and handle these kinds of copyist errors and differences in MSS. One of their primary theories was that these older MSS that had been found—Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and some others—because they were older, were better. So there are about three or four of these Alexandrian MSS from North Africa, where if any two or three of them agree, it basically goes, that’s it, that is what it should be. But North Africa was a hotbed of heresy in many ways in the early church, and so that wasn’t exactly an area where theological accuracy was the best. Further north across the Mediterranean in Greece and Turkey, there is a vast storehouse of MSS. They are not as old, but there are many hundreds more of them, and more are being discovered. From this, a certain text type known as the Majority Text has emerged.
The KJV and NKJV are based on a small group of relatively old manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text from the Middle Ages. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, a Roman Catholic scholar named Erasmus compiled the first critical text. A critical text is where several different MSS are compared. There may be some disagreements in them, but you make notations in the margin at the bottom as to where the disagreements might be. A scholar can consult that and see the listing of the different readings of that particular manuscript. The first edition of Erasmus used only eight or nine Greek MSS, the oldest of which went back to the eighth century. As he studied more, he found other MSS, and at most he only used thirteen, and they weren’t that old and weren’t very good. Now we have hundreds and hundreds more of that same text type, so those 9-13 manuscripts that Erasmus used were not the best, but they represented a particular type of manuscript or region. That’s why they are also sometimes referred to as the Byzantine text type. The KJV and NJKV fit that pattern. We like to use it, but it is not always the best.
The verb συνέχω—SUNECHO is used, but in the NASB, it is an imperfect middle indicative—“devoting himself completely to the word.” In the NKJV and KJV, as found in the Majority Text, it is an imperfect passive form. So the voice is different. Also, there is the difference of being compelled by the Spirit in the Majority Text, or by the word or to the word in Textus Receptus. To complicate things, this word sunecho has a huge range of meanings. It can mean to sustain, to guard, to seize, to distress (even with the idea of being ill), to control, to occupy one’s attention fully, to urge, to direct, or to control.
How do you choose which meaning is intended here?
The context!
Which fits the context better? The context is a time when Paul indicates he is fearful, concerned, and distressed. The Lord is going to appear to him in a vision in verse 9—“Do not be afraid {any longer,} but go on speaking and do not be silent.” The Lord wouldn’t say that if Paul weren’t a little bit fearful at this time. He just needed a little additional encouragement. Therefore, the idea that Paul was specifically compelled or led by the Spirit to go to Corinth at this time aligns with the context, as Paul needed this direction.
The Holy Spirit doesn’t lead every believer in this way. This is unique to the apostles and the apostolic era. It is not qualified anywhere else in the New Testament. We don’t even know how the Holy Spirit did this.
We have this word used in one other place in a similar context.
2 Corinthians 5:14
2 Corinthians 5:14
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
This compelling of something doesn’t necessarily have to be a “feeling” as much as it may be through the Word. In other places in the Scripture, the Holy Spirit works through the Word. So, when the Holy Spirit is compelling Paul, it could be that as Paul is reflecting upon the promises of God to sustain him in difficult circumstances, God the Holy Spirit is using that to strengthen him and encourage him to go ahead to Corinth and face whatever challenges there may be, similar to the ones he has already faced.
“… testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.”
This is another important word that we find in the Greek. It is διαμαρτύρομαι—DIAMARTUROMAI which means a serious declaration, a warning, to testify or call to witness.
The “testifying” is used about nine times in the New Testament.
As in
Acts 2:40
Acts 2:40
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.”
Acts 8:25
Acts 8:25
25 So when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
Acts 10:42
Acts 10:42
42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.
Acts 20:21
Acts 20:21
21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:24
Acts 20:24
24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
Acts 23:11
Acts 23:11
11 But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.”
Paul is fulfilling his ministry as an apostle to be a witness.
Remember Acts 1:8, a key verse in Acts, the Lord’s parting words to the apostles were, “you shall be My witnesses.”
Acts 1:8
Acts 1:8
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
The use of this word here is just one way Luke reminds us that Paul is fulfilling his mission, and he is going to the Jews to give testimony that Jesus is the Messiah.
Another use of the main verb martureo, which is used several times in Acts, but not in the same sense, is in Acts 14:3
Acts 14:3
Acts 14:3
3 Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
So this idea of bearing witness is common in Acts.
Transitions: The Holy Spirit Expands the Church. Acts 18:1-18
Transitions: The Holy Spirit Expands the Church. Acts 18:1-18
Acts 18:6
Acts 18:6
6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
Blasphemy here refers to their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah and His claims to be the Messiah. Shaking out the garments was a distinctly Jewish practice, a part of their culture, and it served as a physical symbol of the fact that Paul was leaving them, essentially acknowledging that they were taking responsibility for their own decision. He was moving on down the road. What he means by “Your blood be on your own heads” is that they are responsible now for their eternal destiny. They have rejected the truth, so blood here is a metaphor standing for life. He says he is clear because he has made the issue clear, and now he is going to the Gentiles. As is seen in other studies, this is one thing that really angered the Jewish audience because in Second Temple Judaism at this time in the first century, there was the idea that they were a spiritual elite that, simply because of their descent from Abraham, were automatically guaranteed a destiny in heaven. In some forms of rabbinical teaching at that time, the Gentiles were not.
Acts 18:7
Acts 18:7
7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue.
In these verses, two converts are mentioned. Titius Justus is a Gentile proselyte. Not a full proselyte because he is referred to as one who worshipped God, a God-worshipper. His house was next door to the synagogue. We know from the location of the synagogue in Corinth that this was a wealthy area, and so this was a rather large house, which then became the place where the new church in Corinth was going to meet. On Saturday, the Jews would gather, and on Sunday, the Christians would gather next door at the house of Justus, and this must have been something that really irritated the Jewish community because they were so close, right next to their synagogue.
Acts 18:8
Acts 18:8
8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Crispus is also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as one whom Paul baptized. We are told in this verse that he “believed in the Lord.” This is standard vocabulary in the Scripture on how to be saved. How are we saved? By inviting Jesus into our hearts? No, that is not what the Scripture says. People have all kinds of non-biblical terminology, and that is why it is so hard to understand what the Bible says to be saved. It doesn’t mean committing your life to Jesus, giving your life to Jesus, making Christ part of your life, or inviting Him into your life. Again and again, there is this simple terminology: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Believe means to trust, to believe something to be true and to rely upon it.
So, Crispus believes in the Lord, and his whole household. So, his entire family trusts in Christ as their savior, the one who died on the cross for their sins. Along with this, “many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized.”
The word for hearing is a present active participle of the word ἀκούω--AKOUO, meaning to hear. However, it also implies, in many contexts, listening to a command and obeying it. The gospel is a command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. As a participle, it has a temporal sense to it, so it should be translated to give it a little more clarity: “when they were hearing the gospel, they believed.” It is an imperfect tense, indicating that this is a continuous action. The idea here is that as Paul is proclaiming the gospel, dialoguing with the Jews and explaining the Old Testament passages, there was a continuous stream of people who were hearing it and responding to the illumination of God the Holy Spirit and the call of the Word of God, and were putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. And again, we see that their response was just like Crispus's, to believe.
What did they do after they believed? They were baptized. They didn’t wait for a period of time.
There is a view about baptism that has been taught by a group known as hyper-dispensationalists. The word “dispensationalism” refers to the belief that God administers His plan in history in different ways across various ages. There are different levels of revelation. What Abraham knew was not as much as what David knew, and what David knew was not as much as what Paul knew. There is progress in revelation throughout the ages, and as God gives a new level of revelation, new responsibilities and requirements emerge during that new era or age. The period preceding the cross is known as the age of Israel. It began with the call of Abraham in approximately 2000 BC, and it ends at the cross. In the age of Israel, the focal point is on Israel, but that age is subdivided into what we call dispensations. A dispensation is a period demarcated by divine revelation as to how God is administering human history. We have one period of that administration, which we call the patriarchs (from Abraham to Moses), in preparation for bringing the Jewish nation out of Egypt, approximately 1446 BC. And at that time, a new revelation was given with the Mosaic Law—new requirements, new obligations, and that introduced the dispensation of the Law. The dispensation of the Law began in 1446 with the giving of the Law, and it ended at the cross. Then with the day of Pentecost some 50 days after the crucifixion—that 50-day gap is not the dispensation of the Law, it is still the age of Israel but it is a hinge period, a transition—a new era begins, new revelation, God the Holy Spirit comes to indwell each believer, and the church age extends until the Rapture of the church which removes all church age believers from the earth. That is what ends the church age.
A lot of people think that the Rapture begins the Tribulation period, but it doesn’t.
The Tribulation period is a seven-year period defined in Daniel 9:26-27, which starts when the “prince who is to come” (the future Antichrist) signs a peace treaty with Israel.
Daniel 9:26-27
Daniel 9:26-27
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
That signing (not the Rapture) starts the timer. Once again, there will be a transition period of unknown length between the end of the church age and the beginning of the Tribulation.
Around 1915 or 1916, a book titled "Dispensational Truth" by Clarence Larkin was published. Larkin said that if the Rapture were to occur in his day—the Rapture is a signless event, nothing has to happen for the Rapture to occur, there is no prophecy to occur first, it can occur at any moment—it would be at least fifty or sixty years before the Tribulation could begin because of very little Jewish presence in the land, no Jewish nation in the land, no temple built on the temple mount. There were none of the structures that we see as necessary to be present in Israel at the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week, and he recognized that it would take all of these things to be put into place.
Now, some 100 years later, we look back on the events of the 20th century and we see the vibrant Jewish nation. The population of Israel is about five and a half million Jews and another million or so Arabs. There are almost as many Jews in the land as outside of the land. Never in history, since the destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 BC, has there been as many Jews in the land as there are today. So we see that the stage is being set. That doesn’t mean that the Rapture is going to occur tomorrow; it just means that more and more things are in place so that the transition period between the Rapture and the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week doesn’t need to be quite as long. Therefore, it is likely to be a shorter period than what Clarence Larkin perceived.
Certain things are distinct in each dispensation related to the covenants. For example, in the Old Testament, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision; the sign of the Mosaic covenant was the observance of the Sabbath. The sign of the church is baptism—water baptism by immersion—because it teaches a spiritual principle. It teaches that we are identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. This identification with Christ (baptism by the Spirit) began on the day of Pentecost.
Some dispensationalists came along called hyper-dispensationalists who said the church really didn’t begin on the day of Pentecost because there is still this Jewish thing going on; it didn’t begin until Paul was converted in Acts chapter nine. Others say that it didn’t start until Peter took the gospel to Cornelius in Acts chapter ten, and Paul began to take the gospel to the Gentiles on the first missionary journey. Others, real hyper-dispensationalists, argue that the church did not truly begin until after the close of the book of Acts, when Paul began to openly discuss the mystery doctrine of the church age in the prison epistles. Hyper-dispensationalists say that baptism was only for that interim period; it was temporary. They also attempt to build the argument that it is similar to the sign gifts—tongues, knowledge, and prophecy—that were temporary.
The fact is, the church began on the day of Pentecost. And Paul continued to baptize both Jew and Gentile; he never treated baptism like it was something distinctive for the Jews or for Jewish converts. God has a purpose for baptism that extends beyond just being a significant event for Jewish people. It was to teach a principle that we are identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Positional truth is a term used to describe this doctrine.
Acts 18:9-10
Acts 18:9-10
9 Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.”
There are three promises made here. The first is, “I am with you.” In a similar sense, He is always with us. Jesus promised He will never leave us or forsake us, and that no matter what the circumstances might be, He is always with us and will always sustain us and strengthen us. Then, specifically to Paul, “no man will attack you in order to harm you.” That would not apply to anybody else; we can’t extrapolate any principle from that. It is a promise to Paul in a particular situation and a particular time. Then the third thing He promises is that he has many people in this city. In other words, God is saying that many people will respond to the gospel message here. And this was indeed the case; in contrast to Athens, where few responded, there were so many that Paul stayed a year and a half in Corinth.
Acts 18:11
Acts 18:11
11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
As we proceed through this section, we will see that several different words are used to communicate the Word of God. This word διδάσκω—DIDASKO is a basic word for instruction and teaching. So, Paul is going through the Word of God, and what does that mean? It means the Old Testament. Here is the apostle to the Gentiles, the apostle to the church, teaching them from the Old Testament. If you don’t understand the Old Testament, you can’t grasp a lot of the things that are going on in the New Testament. The Old Testament is our foundation for New Testament truth.
This teaching generates a reaction. The Jews launch a united attack against Paul, and they are going to bring him before the judgment seat in Corinth.
Acts 18:12
Acts 18:12
12 When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat,
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, identifies various Jewish privileges granted under Roman law throughout the Roman Empire, which included the right to observe certain ancestral customs, worship their own God, and follow the Mosaic Law. What is happening here is that the Jews are basically coming and bringing a theological charge against Paul that he is causing disruption among the Jewish community.
Gallio is a proconsul about whom we have extensive information. His brother was famous because he was a famous Stoic philosopher and a tutor for Nero when he was young. The family of Gallio was originally Spanish. Gallio was an aristocrat, well-educated, and for these reasons, he was appointed to be the proconsul in Achaia. He had remarkable tact and people skills, and therefore, he could handle an environment where there might be some opposition. But unfortunately, he had an anti-Semitic strain, which was typical of Roman aristocrats as well as his own family. Gallio wasn’t proconsul for long, and therefore it is easy to date his time there around 51-52. He came down with some disease and had to give up his post, and went back to Rome. Later, he was executed under Nero.
Acts 18:13
Acts 18:13
13 saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
At this point, the text says that Paul was about to open his mouth. The reason is that it was a standard for someone who was brought before the proconsul to swear an oath on a particular column. Gallio interrupted the proceedings.
Acts 18:14-16
Acts 18:14-16
14 And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you. 15 But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.” 16 And he drove them from the judgment seat.
Then all the Gentiles look at this, because of how he has handled this, as an opportunity to beat up on the Jews and express their anti-Semitic attitudes.
Acts 18:17
Acts 18:17
17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things.
Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue before, but he defected; he became a Christian. After this, Sosthenes defects and becomes a Christian, and when Paul writes the epistle to the Corinthians, he says he is writing it with the assistance of Sosthenes. Sosthenes became his amanuensis, his secretary who would write down things for him, so he later travelled with Paul. Here, Gallio has given his tacit approval to beat up on the Jews and riot against them. This is often a way in which anti-Semitism expresses itself.
Then we see the conclusion of Paul’s stay.
Acts 18:18
Acts 18:18
18 So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.
He does something unusual. He is going to take what appears to be a Jewish vow, but it seems a little unusual. He leaves from the port of Cenchrea, and their first stop will be Ephesus.
“…for he was keeping a vow.” What this means is that sometime earlier, he had taken a vow, and after the period of the vow, he would have his head shaved. During the period of the vow, he was letting his hair grow long. One view is that this was a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:1-21). At the end of the vow, they would go to Jerusalem to have their head shaved. But this was extremely expensive for someone living in the diaspora and not in Judea. Paul is a long way away; he is not getting his haircut in Jerusalem, and so maybe it is something else. The second option is that it is some form of Jewish vow of thanksgiving to God for preserving him. It could be some other form of Jewish vow. Probably the correct interpretation is that this is a vow taken by Paul, but modified for the Jews in the diaspora, so that they don’t have to go back to Jerusalem to have their head shaved; instead, they can have it done within a local synagogue. A third option that some have proposed is that perhaps this is a vow related to a Greek background, but that doesn’t fit Paul at all, and it is a silly notion. Then there is the way liberals think: it really didn’t happen, Luke just put it in there for color.
What we see here is part of this idea of transition. The question that people have is why Paul is taking a vow. Doesn’t he know it is the church age? Doesn’t he know that the Law is over with? Sure, he does. He is the one who is teaching this, the one who emphasized these things at the Jerusalem Council. But Paul is still Jewish. The Mosaic Law is part of his cultural heritage. It provides him with a framework for expressing a vow of praise and thanksgiving to God. So, he is applying that not because it sets him apart as something special, nor because it is a special form for sanctification, but because it is a way he can, in terms of his cultural background, express his gratitude to God for what has taken place. This is part of what we have discussed regarding the transitional nature of Acts.
Why is this doctrine of transition important?
It is essential because it helps us understand how to read the book of Acts, as well as comprehend some of the events that have a strong Jewish flavor and background. And yet, they are related to the church age. How do we put these things together? Paul says in Galatians 5 that anyone who circumcises his male children because of the Law is entirely wrong. Then, at the same time, he writes that he has Timothy circumcised. There are two different reasons. The reason he makes the statement he does in Galatians 5 is because in Galatians, they are being taught that this has spiritual significance both for justification and for sanctification. He rejects that. But with Timothy, he is not bringing any spiritual significance to it; he just knows that Timothy has a reputation. People in the Jewish community know that he is Jewish—his mother was Jewish, his father was Gentile—and if he is going to have any hearing in the Jewish community, then he needs to be circumcised because of the way the Jews separated themselves from Gentiles. He is doing this as a matter of convenience and to open doors for the gospel. It has no spiritual significance whatsoever. The difference was whether or not it was being done for a spiritual reason.
Transition means that in some senses (plural), not every sense, there is an overlap of features from one dispensation to the next. Some things have changed. Some things that have been normative in the age of Israel are going to come to an end. Some things that will be normative in the church age will begin. Some things are going to take place during that transitional period that are temporary—like the sign gifts. We know what is temporary because they are specifically stated to be temporary. Some features of one dispensation continue for a short time into the subsequent dispensation because it takes time for the new revelation to be revealed, disclosed, and then disseminated in the new dispensation.
This does not mean that an absolute break between the dispensations doesn’t occur. There is a clear break. When Christ died on the cross for our sins, at that point, we quit looking forward to a fulfillment of the promise and we looked at its completed nature on the cross. Salvation is different. It is specific after that Passover that salvation was in Jesus only and His death on the cross.
But there are transition periods. Fifty days before Pentecost, when the church begins—almost 2 months—Christ died on the cross, and He is the end of the Law. If Christ is the end of the Law, what is the standard between the death on the cross and the day of Pentecost? The Holy Spirit comes, and He doesn’t bring a New Testament. What do you do? The Law ended; what does that mean? You are in a whole new era; things have changed. And God doesn’t give all that information except over thirty years.
Think about this. From Passover in AD 33, we know that salvation was no longer a future event but a past, completed action. But how many people knew that? Word didn’t travel that fast. What if you were an Old Testament saint living in a Jewish community in Alexandria, Babylon, or Rome? You have been believing the promises like Simeon at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke. It is now about AD 35, and somebody has just come who has heard the gospel. You are like the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, and you haven’t yet heard about Jesus. So even though it is a couple of years after the cross, you are technically just an Old Testament believer.
After the cross, the Holy Spirit doesn’t descend for another fifty days, and initially it is only to the disciples and Jewish believers. It is not to Gentiles until you get to Acts chapter 10. The Holy Spirit only comes upon the disciples and Jewish believers, and then incrementally to other groups. It is two years plus before He comes to the Samaritan believers. It is another five or six years before the Gentiles come in. This is approximately seven or eight years after the cross, before the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit. What happens in between? Then the Old Testament saints, such as the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, don’t receive the Holy Spirit until almost twenty years after the cross. It is a transition period. They are still functioning under the revelation by John the Baptist. There were other Jews who were functioning under the information given in Rome because there hadn’t been a dissemination of New Testament truth yet. It is a transition period.
